Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Community Bus Trusts

Dr. Alan Whitehead: If he will make it his policy to encourage the establishment of community bus trusts to provide not-for-profit bus routes in urban areas. [143964]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): The Government's policies recognise the value of community and voluntary transport, and the introduction of the urban bus challenge will further encourage that. Community transport already benefits from our rural transport funding and my hon. Friend will welcome the fact that many local communities will benefit from the 45 per cent. increase in support for rural bus services that was announced in the rural White Paper.
I am also pleased to say that we are announcing today the intention to give local authorities more flexibility to use this funding to safeguard existing bus services, as well as to provide entirely new services. In addition, we will consult shortly on extending the bus fuel duty rebate and other measures to encourage the expansion of the community transport sector.

Dr. Whitehead: I thank my hon. Friend for that encouraging answer. Is he aware that some urban bus companies in medium-sized towns and cities try to streamline their services by cutting out neighbourhood bus routes, which are a particular benefit to the elderly, people who attend hospital and those with restricted mobility? Does he think that an effective community bus trust would resolve many of those issues, if implemented well locally? Is he prepared to venture that his Department would look favourably on the formation of trusts that might fall foul of remnants of the Transport Act 1985?

Mr. Hill: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that matter. I am aware that the possible loss of neighbourhood feeder services is an issue in Southampton, and he is right to raise it. We are keen to see the development of community provision, and there are likely to be opportunities for that in the urban bus challenge, as announced in our 10-year plan.

The aim is to contribute towards improving transport provision for deprived urban areas, not only in inner cities but in outlying urban estates. Some £40 million will be available over the next three years, and we would certainly expect community transport schemes, with various structures, to be a prominent part of the project.

Miss Anne McIntosh: Will the Minister consider the bus routes that are operated by First York, and in particular the increasing unreliability of its bus schedules, from which a number of services have been cancelled? The community element of the service is that it gives people who live in Haxby and Wigginton access to York hospital. Without that bus route, they will simply not arrive to visit patients.

Mr. Hill: The hon. Lady is right to raise the issue of bus services in her constituency, and we share her concerns. We recognise that bus services, and in particular local authority budgets for bus subsidies, are under pressure in some areas, and that tender prices for subsidised services have been increasing. She will be pleased to learn that the recent revenue support grant settlement took those pressures into account.

Ms Joan Walley: May I stress to my hon. Friend how important it is that we deal with the legacy of deregulation in our urban areas? Last week, PMT, the local bus company in Stoke-on-Trent, announced the withdrawal of bus services 86, 92, 94 and 96. There will be quality partnerships across the city, but people who live on its fringes and cannot access the fast bus routes will not be able to make use of public transport. Will he look closely at how he can assist us to get back those crucial neighbourhood bus services?

Mr. Hill: My hon. Friend is right. It is disturbing to hear of the loss of services in Stoke-on-Trent because PMT has withdrawn some routes. She is absolutely right to draw attention to the disastrous loss of bus services as a result of deregulation and privatisation, which reduced bus passenger journeys by 13 million a day. However, I am delighted that there are signs that the Government are turning around the long-term decline in bus use, and we are determined to achieve further growth.
I believe that the urban bus challenge will offer opportunities for Stoke-on-Trent. We will certainly support the best projects for which bids are submitted and will issue guidance and invitations to bid, with the aim of starting the first round of projects later this year.

Housing Management

Mr. James Plaskitt: If he will make a statement on tenant participation in housing management. [143965]

The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Nick Raynsford): We will continue to promote increased opportunities for tenants to influence and have more control over the management of their homes through tenant participation compacts linked to best value. The majority of councils appear to be making good


progress with introducing compacts and some registered social landlords are also developing compacts with their tenants.

Mr. Plaskitt: In my constituency, tenants in Warwick are looking forward to the local tenant participation compact, but it will involve them in handling some very complex issues. What support will my hon. Friend's Department offer for the training that will be required?

Mr. Raynsford: I welcome my hon. Friend's comments, because I know that there has been considerable progress in Warwick. The tenant participation compact, which has now been agreed by all parties, is due to be launched this spring. On the second part of his question, which was about funding, we have set aside £6 million in 2001–02 to help councils and tenants to develop compacts.

Sir Sydney Chapman: I congratulate the Minister on his forthcoming elevation to the Privy Council. Does he recall that, shortly after the general election, the Deputy Prime Minister promised that there would be a return of council housing to other landlords? How does he square that distinct commitment with the housing Green Paper, which promises to stop the transfer of at least 200,000 council houses every year?

Mr. Raynsford: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. He will know from our housing Green Paper that we have an extremely ambitious programme to achieve a step change in the condition of all council housing in this country and have set the ambitious target of ensuring that all substandard properties are modernised within a 10-year timetable. That will involve substantial increased investment in council housing and the continued transfer of some properties to other bodies, such as registered social landlords, to secure additional investment. That is part of a comprehensive programme in which the tenants ultimately decide the best future for their homes. That is absolutely in line with the principle of tenant participation, which was the subject of the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt).

Dr. Brian Iddon: Under this Government, council tenants at least have choices, are consulted and will have votes. Should they not be warned that, under the Tories, they would have none of that and all their council housing would be transferred at a stroke in an accelerated manner and without votes, choices or anything else?

Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. This Government not only provided extra investment but made it clear that the choice about the future of their homes is one that tenants will make. It is right that they should decide. In somewhat ill-chosen remarks about housing, the Conservative party has implied that it intends forcibly to transfer all council housing to other landlords. I do not think that that is likely to command much respect among tenants.

Local Government

Mr. Desmond Swayne: If he will make a statement on the future of two-tier local government and the Government's plans for regional government in England. [143966]

The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): We remain committed to moving to directly elected regional government, where there is support as demonstrated in referendums. In the meantime, there are no plans at present to reform the structure of local government in England. Unlike the previous Government, we believe in the decentralisation of power at local, regional and national levels.

Mr. Swayne: Has the Secretary of State seen the Library research into the political affiliations of the members of regional development agency boards? It transpires that nearly three quarters of them are Labour cronies, so does he understand the preference of many of our constituents for sticking with their county councils and doing away with the regional development agencies altogether?

Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman must be including an awful lot of business people in his Labour cronies. That makes a remarkable change in the political situation in the regions.
The Tory party is committed to abolishing the regional chambers, the assemblies and the development agencies, so I shall deal with the direct political representation that it has. More than 105 Tory councillors are on regional chambers and 33 are on the south-east regional assembly, including Councillor Simon Hayes of the New Forest district council in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.

Mr. Jim Cousins: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his answer to the opening question, which made it clear that the movement towards regional government in those regions that make a case for it and can convince the people that it is right will not be blocked or delayed by the irrelevance of dealing with unnecessary local government reform?

Mr. Prescott: Yes, that is the point that we have made. In the referendum on the London strategic authority, 75 per cent. voted yes. On that occasion, the Tories asked people to vote no, but I presume that they have now accepted the result. They always oppose the establishment of development agencies and constitutional change, but they eventually come round to accepting them.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Does the Secretary of State agree that regional government costs the taxpayer a fortune without our being able to see any great advantage from it? Does he realise how angry that makes people in Rochford, where the grant this year is £400,000 less than it was six years ago? The people there think that the money would be far better spent on giving help to existing councils.

Mr. Prescott: Of course, as the hon. Gentleman knows, there is no form of regional government at the moment, but there are regional organisations. The first regional


body set up by the previous Administration was that of the regional government offices, which presumably cost a few bob to run as well. There is not a great deal of money being spent on reorganisation.
We believe that it is relevant to have a strategy for the regions, which is why we encouraged the development agencies, which were also supported by the previous Administration. The hon. Gentleman was a Member of Parliament in 1979 when his party fought on an election manifesto pledge to get rid of the Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies. However, as soon as they returned to power, they eagerly engaged in using them.

Mr. Ben Bradshaw: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many fine cities in England would be perfectly capable of running their own affairs, although at the moment they have to suffer being lumped in with county councils, in which rural interests dominate? Does it not make sense for matters that are best dealt with on a regional level to be dealt with in that way, for those best dealt with locally to be dealt with at district or city level, and to deliver, at long last, the unitary status that cities such as Exeter deserve?

Mr. Prescott: It is true that many of the unitary authorities that were established under the previous Administration do a good job, and we see local government being built on that unitary system. It is also true that strategic decisions that need to be made in the English regions are perhaps not being made as well as they are in the London area, where strategic decisions are made by a strategic body. We have said that, ultimately, the people will decide, in a referendum. The people will be given the choice, and if they want the provision we shall observe their wishes.

Mr. Archie Norman: After three and a half years in government, has the Deputy Prime Minister forgotten completely that it was a solemn Labour manifesto pledge to introduce directly elected regional government? Is not the truth that, although he is still enthusiastic, he has not succeeded in convincing any of his colleagues? The Prime Minister has cold feet and the local government Minister has said that the issue is all a great diversion.
Four or five weeks ago, the Deputy Prime Minister said in the House that he was still consulting on the matter. Is he consulting anyone but himself? If he is not going to reaffirm the commitment to introduce regional government—or provide a time scale for its introduction—why should we believe anything that he has to say about local government democracy?

Mr. Prescott: We made it clear in our manifesto that we believed in decentralisation, after 18 years of centralisation and the break-up of local government under the previous Administration. In our three years, we have introduced radical change, in the form of devolution in Scotland and Wales; introduced the necessary legislation to conduct the referendum in London, and established regional bodies such as the RDAs; and reformed the civil service structure to enable us to make joined-up government decisions in the regions. Those are good steps towards our commitment to decentralisation.
In the manifesto, we said that we would give the choice to people in the regions, and that where there was a demand, we would hold a referendum. [Interruption.] We have not yet received that demand. Consultation is going on in all the regions. Opposition Members can ask their local Tory councillors who are involved in them. They will find that many of those councillors are joining us in the demand for regional government.

Mr. Norman: The truth is that we have no directly elected regional government. All that we have are extremely expensive regional bureaucracies delivering nothing to anybody. After three and a half years, the Government cannot make up their own mind on what was a manifesto pledge. Is not the truth that the Conservative party is now the party of local government, and that Labour is presiding over what the head of the Local Government Association—who is a Labour supporter—described as the strange death of local democracy?
Will the Deputy Prime Minister now affirm the Government's commitment to the future of county councils? If not, does that mean that, if Labour were to be re-elected, county councils that date back to the Domesday Book would cease to exist, and that 3 May could be the date of the last county council elections in the history of England?

Mr. Prescott: The obvious assumption behind the hon. Gentleman's question is that the Conservatives will lose the general election. I agree with him on that. He mentioned regional bureaucracies. The previous Administration set up regional government offices that were accountable to no one but central Government. They were not accountable to people in the regions.

Mr. Norman: What about the RDAs?

Mr. Prescott: It is true that the RDAs are appointed centrally, but they contain locally elected representatives, such as the 105 Tory councillors who sit on the bodies to which they make their reports. The hon. Gentleman suggests that the Conservative party is the friend of local authorities, but in that context I shall mention only the Banham review—a report into the organisation of local authorities that was a total mess and had to be withdrawn—and the poll tax, which cost the country £14 billion. By any fair test, to suggest that the previous Administration were the friend of local authorities is not acceptable.

Council Tax

Mr. David Borrow: What representations he has received on the council tax banding of park homes. [143967]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): Last year, we received one representation from the British Holiday and Home Park Association in response to our local government finance Green Paper, and a further 15 representations and one petition to the Queen from residents of mobile and park homes about council tax.
About a third of the 1,110 responses to last year's consultation on the recommendations of the working party on park homes commented on the council tax.

Mr. Borrow: Most of my constituents who live in mobile homes in the Tarleton, Penwortham and Banks areas occupy properties worth less than £20,000. They always tell me that they consider it unfair that they should pay the same council tax as occupiers of properties worth twice as much. Will my hon. Friend give serious consideration in the current review of local government finance to the introduction of an additional council tax band below band A to deal with that blatant unfairness towards owners of park homes?

Ms Hughes: My hon. Friend is very experienced in matters of valuation generally, so I respond to him with some trepidation, especially as I cannot accede fully to his request. He will know that restructuring the bands, including splitting a band, would require primary legislation. We have no plans to introduce such legislation in the foreseeable future. However, I am aware of the views that he has expressed and we are keeping the matter under review, as I have made clear.
Furthermore, although the local government finance Green Paper did not address the issue specifically, a number of respondents have raised the matter with the Government. We shall certainly consider those responses as we move towards preparing a White Paper on local government finance.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: It is not the Minister's fault, but there is complete disarray when it comes to the council tax bands applicable to park home estates. Whether a park home is placed in council tax band A depends entirely on the whim of the district valuer. A great many people, both in the House and outside, assumed at the outset that park homes would be in band A. Is not there an excellent case for putting them in band A and dealing with them in that manner?

Ms Hughes: That is another example of the new party of local government demonstrating its very short memory, as the banding structure for council tax was introduced by the Conservative party. By definition, any banding system will mean that bands have lower and upper limits, and that there is a range in each band. The Government are aware of the view that the bands should be restructured. We are keeping the matter under review. The relevant legislation will not be changed in the foreseeable future, but we will consider the matter in the context of the White Paper on local government finance.

Mr. Hilton Dawson: I support everything that my hon. Friend the Minister has said about council tax banding. One indicator of the health of the park home sector is that people are prepared to invest sometimes six-figure sums in such homes. Does not that show that the Government are right to pursue reform of the sector, and that the previous Government's Mobile Homes Act 1983 was completely useless and transparently hopeless when it came to preserving the

rights of park home owners? Is not it now time to introduce new housing legislation to protect the rights of those residents?

Ms Hughes: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that the investment that many owners of park homes put into their properties is very creditable. He will know that it was this Government who established the working party to take up some of the issues that the previous Government had long neglected in relation to park home owners. That working party's report was published in July 2000. We are consulting on it and considering the recommendations.

Travellers

Mr. John Randall: What measures his Department is taking to tackle the problem of antisocial behaviour by travellers; and if he will make a statement. [143968]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Mullin): My Department has issued revised circular guidance to local authorities on unauthorised camping, making it clear that criminal or antisocial behaviour should not be tolerated in any circumstances. Such behaviour is as unacceptable in the gypsy and traveller communities as it is in the settled community and it should be dealt with using the powers already available to local authorities and the police. A copy of the circular, issued on 26 July 2000, is in the Library of the House.

Mr. Randall: The Minister must be aware that one problem that is often encountered is that when an illegal encampment is evicted, the occupants simply go a short distance away and create another nuisance. Is his Department thinking of any measures that could be taken that would prevent such behaviour, which is creating much expense for local authorities, individuals and businesses?

Mr. Mullin: The difficulty is that merely moving people on does not solve the problem, because it simply transfers it over the border into the area of a neighbouring local authority. The key to dealing—[Interruption.] It is a serious issue. The key to dealing with problems with travellers is co-operation between local authorities and the police. When the police and local authorities work closely together—there are some examples of good practice that others would do well to emulate, such as in Essex, Northamptonshire and Oxford—the problem caused by antisocial travellers can be easily contained.
I am not sure that there is a very great problem in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. We looked up the returns that his local authority, Hillingdon, had made for the number of illegally parked caravans. It did not make a return to the most recent census, in July 2000, and the highest number in recent years was seven, in January 1999.

Mr. Mark Todd: Is not one problem that the traditional activity of many illegal travellers and campers is waste collection and disposal, which they carry out in defiance of environmental protection law, which covers the licensing of vehicles and


the safe and appropriate disposal of what they collect? Would it not be useful to ensure that the regulatory authorities understand that law, and apply it properly to those who carry out those activities?

Mr. Mullin: Yes, my hon. Friend is quite right. A large part of the problem is not a lack of powers but a lack of proper enforcement. The powers exist and there are some fairly stiff penalties, but co-operation between local authorities and police, and sometimes other agencies, is needed to ensure that they are properly enforced.

Mr. Damian Green: I wonder whether the Minister recognises how complacent he sounds on this issue. The Government have simply failed to act effectively. If he does not want to accept that from me, perhaps he will listen to the words of the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd), who said in July 2000:
Travellers are setting up on illegal sites in Derbyshire because the police are seen as a soft touch.
Will the Minister acknowledge that the guidelines on travellers who trespass, issued by chief police officers, say:
Sometimes the reason for non-exercise of
police powers
will he a lack of police resources?
His colleagues admit it; the police admit it. When will he admit that the Government have failed decent, law-abiding people on this issue?

Mr. Mullin: As I said, this is a serious issue. We are not in the least complacent. First, we have already toughened the guidelines. Secondly, we made available £17 million over the past three years to upgrade legal camping sites, and not a lot happened. In many cases, those sites deteriorated beyond recognition under the previous Administration, and it is a serious problem. We cannot hope to evict illegal travellers unless they have somewhere reasonable to go, so we are making available £17 million to upgrade the 300 or so existing sites. We consider that to be an important precondition for addressing the problem.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I do not accept the tenor of the question, because there are some decent travellers, but I want to raise a specific problem that has arisen in my constituency and elsewhere. Itinerant horses have strayed on to the A13, for example. The local authorities and the police do not have the power to require that the cost of impounding the horses be met by those reclaiming them. Will my hot. Friend consider introducing legislation to ensure that the costs of recovery and custody of the horses are recoverable, or the horses are not returned?

Mr. Mullin: We recognise that there are still many problems, such as the one that my hon. Friend has mentioned. We are in the market for constructive suggestions. We will consider any serious suggestion for improving the enforcement of existing regulations. In most instances, the necessary powers exist. It is a matter of proper enforcement, and there are councils where that has happened.

Rail Recovery Action Group

Mr. Michael Fabricant: If he will make a statement on the progress made by the rail recovery action group. [143969]

The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): Following the derailment of a train at Hatfield on 17 October, Railtrack instituted an immediate examination of the entire network, leading to nearly 1,000 20 mph speed restrictions being imposed, and requiring 450 miles of rerailing and the replacement of 650 points.
The rail recovery action group brings together the key players in the rail industry to help to get services back to normal. Railtrack has now rerailed 273 miles and replaced 234 points. Of the remaining 421 speed restrictions, only 110 are still at 20 mph.
Passengers have suffered considerable inconvenience, which we all regret. Services are continuing to improve. Twenty-three of the 28 train operating companies are working at or close to normal timetables. Railtrack has given assurances that by the end of the month the network will enable about 85 per cent. of all services to operate normally, and that by Easter the network will be back to normal.
This unprecedented programme has required extraordinary efforts by thousands of railway workers, through the most difficult conditions of floods, snow and sub-zero temperatures. I am sure that the House will wish to join me in thanking them for all their efforts on the public's behalf.

Mr. Fabricant: The House will join the Deputy Prime Minister in congratulating all the engineers and technicians, who have done good work so far. However, he will recall that on 9 November the Government held a summit—he was present, as was the Prime Minister—with Railtrack. He said that there would be a reliable timetable by Christmas. Sadly, that did not happen. We also heard of high hopes for a reliable timetable to begin yesterday. However, less than 50 per cent.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] The House does not like to hear what I have to say, but it is the truth.
It was hoped that yesterday 85 per cent. of services would be working again. Sadly, less than 50 per cent. of them were. Do the Government now set their heart behind Railtrack's commitment that services will be back to normal by Easter, as the Deputy Prime Minister has said? By normal, does he mean that there will be the same, if not better, standards of reliability and punctuality as before Hatfield?

Mr. Prescott: It is true that I told the House and said in public that I supported the evidence given to me and the statements made by Railtrack, to the effect that it would need only three weeks to produce a railway recovery programme. Any Minister in my position is bound to accept that professional advice. We know now that the promise and the recovery programme, followed by a sustainable timetable, can be achieved in normal circumstances only by Easter. I remind the House that normal is defined as 90 per cent. punctuality and reliability. That was called the normal service, which the previous Administration left us. We were working to


improve that, and there were some signs of improvement. That was the definition of normal that was given to me by Railtrack, and it is a matter of record.
It is clear that about 23 of the 28 train companies are operating normal or near normal services by now, and certainly will be by the end of the month. Inter-city trains have longer delays for a number of reasons, as I discovered on Sunday night, as those who read the Daily Mail will appreciate. GNER, Virgin West Coast, First Great Western and Silverlink constitute some 1,000 services a day.
There are usually more than 18,000 services a day, and the majority are working to normal standards. The House wants a normal service to be achieved as soon as possible and for services to operate safely. I have accepted the recovery programme given to me by Railtrack and I expect it to deliver on that. If it does not do so, that will be another reflection on its competence. At the moment, however, I give it my full support in getting back to a normal service.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: My right hon. Friend will have seen the statement made by Railtrack yesterday, in which it set out the difficulties that it foresees in meeting its maintenance programme. Will he ask the Strategic Rail Authority and the rail recovery action group to provide practical ideas about whether Railtrack is capable of being the core service for the railway system, as well as about whether we need to find another strategy if the company is not fit for that purpose?

Mr. Prescott: My hon. Friend makes an important point and describes very much what I have been doing. I have been asking the Strategic Rail Authority questions, as it is the body that should advise us on these matters. She will know that the Strategic Rail Authority invited all the operators to submit evidence and it established working groups. It did so on the basis of the statement made by the then chief executive that there was some conflict between the organisation of the railway under privatisation and the running of a safe operating railway. I rejected that assertion and I notice that Railtrack now also rejects it, as do most of the rail companies. The working groups were established to examine the difficulties, provide alternatives and consider how we might present proposals for discussion in the industry.
I shall report back, as will the Strategic Rail Authority, which will provide its strategic agenda and report for the House to consider. Indeed, the Transport Sub-Committee will also be able to take that information fully into account. Many questions must be asked and many difficulties still face us, but we are trying at this stage to achieve a normal working railway. That is what the country wants and it is what we intend to achieve. I hope that the changes that will be introduced by the Transport Act 2000 will ensure that we get a good, modern railway system—something that this country has not had for decades.

Sir Peter Tapsell: May I preface my question by saying that it does not imply any personal criticism of the right hon. Gentleman? Can he explain why two broken rails at Hatfield—they were on the line to my constituency—have wrecked the entire railway system? Has that happened because Railtrack and the train operating companies did not know

that hundreds of rails throughout the country were dangerous—or because they did know that but continued, month after month, to put at risk the lives of thousands of passengers every day?

Mr. Prescott: The House will understand that that is a matter for the HSE, which is currently investigating it. It is clear from the work that is being done that the track might not have been in a proper state of repair, but that will have a lot to do with the record of investment under the previous Administration.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in negotiations with Railtrack, the Government should be negotiating from a position not only of strength and conciliation, but of fear? Does he accept that Railtrack will not improve its performance unless it knows that there is a distinct possibility that the Government are prepared to take the track back into public ownership?

Mr. Prescott: The framework in which we operate is to ensure that the economic regulation of the railways is done by the Rail Regulator. I appointed a new Rail Regulator, whom I believe to be doing an excellent job. Strategic decisions about preparing not only for the maintenance of a good railway system, but for its enhancement, are given to the Strategic Rail Authority, which has been established in legislation and takes effect on 1 February. The regulator and the authority have an active interest, as do the Government as we provide resources to Railtrack.
We are entitled to ensure that a safe railway is being maintained, in line with the responsibility of the Health and Safety Executive. We are entitled also to ensure that the railway is working and meeting our 10-year plan, which is a matter for the economic regulator. The plan was established by the Government in discussion with the Strategic Rail Authority and we must ensure that it is implemented. That is the best way forward. As to whether Railtrack is fearful of me, I think that it should concentrate on getting things right.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: The Secretary of State is very ready to tell everyone else what their responsibilities are while rarely taking on his responsibilities. We will hold him to his commitments. However, let me remind him that, two years ago, he told John Humphrys on the "Today" programme:
Quality, quality, quality … You will be able to tell in 12 months, John.
Yet the Deputy Prime Minister has been responsible for transport for the past four years, and thus for setting up the SRA, appointing new regulators, setting tough targets and hosting all the train summits. However, he is ever ready to blame the industry as soon as things go wrong.
As the railway slides into deeper financial crisis, and the right hon. Gentleman's 10-year transport plan is in tatters, does he deny that he has been in control of rail policy for the past four years? Instead of improving matters, does he realise that he has made the railway a whole lot worse?

Mr. Prescott: More people are travelling by rail than ever before. That was our intention—[Interruption.] Let


us wait and see. I thought that the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) was talking about the last four years. In those years, more people have travelled by rail, more goods have been carried as freight and the railway system has been safer. That is absolutely clear to anyone who looks at the record. The investment that was announced in our 10-year plan was on a scale that had not been witnessed in the House for decades [Interruption.] I can tell the House what went wrong. I shall quote the hon. Gentleman, who said:
Certainly what we're happy to concede is that with the benefit of hindsight some of the privatisation decisions could have been improved.
What went wrong was the Conservative Government's organisation of a railway system. They are responsible for that. We are introducing and providing the resources, the regulatory framework and a strategic vision. We shall provide a railway that is worthy of this country, rather than the one that the previous Administration constantly cut. We have had to tackle the problems that that caused.

Housing Repairs

Mrs. Ann Cryer: If he will make a statement on resources for local authorities to improve their housing stock. [143970]

The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Nick Raynsford): The Government inherited a £19 billion backlog of renovation and improvement work that was needed on council housing stock. We have made a commitment to tackle that and to bring all social housing in England up to a decent standard by 2010. Allocations for housing capital expenditure by local authorities have been increased from £750 million in 1997–98 to £1.9 billion in the current year. Next year, there will be a further large increase to £2.4 billion, more than double the annual average that the previous Government made available over their last five years.

Mrs. Cryer: I thank my hon. Friend for his helpful comments. Does he believe that they will help my young constituents in Ilkley, where there is a total lack of affordable housing to buy or to rent, mainly due to the previous Government's right-to-buy legislation? When many of my young constituents in Ilkley want to set up home, they have to move away from the areas in which they were brought up, and away from family and friends.

Mr. Raynsford: We fully understand the problems that people experience because of the shortage of affordable housing and the poor condition of the housing stock, to which I referred earlier. That is why we have increased capital allocations. I am pleased to say that the increase for my hon. Friend's authority means just over double the current allocation, in line with the national trend, from £12.7 million in 1996–97 to £26.3 million in 2001–02.
For the provision of more affordable housing, we have doubled the allocation to the Housing Corporation for new investment through registered social landlords. We expect that to lead to a significant improvement in the output of affordable social housing in the next three years.

Mr. Ronnie Fearn: Will the Minister give more help to housing associations, which, in partnership with local authorities, occasionally provide housing for

single people? For example, in my constituency Quest housing has done a remarkable job. Will that work be extended?

Mr. Raynsford: As my hon. Friend will have heard me say in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer), we have doubled the Housing Corporation's allocation for funding of registered social landlords. Total provision will rise from some £690 million in the current year to more than £1.2 billion at the end of the three-year spending review. The money will be available for new investment by housing associations, and local authorities will be able to use their enhanced housing investment programme allocations in the form of local authority housing grants to support similar initiatives.

Dr. Lynne Jones: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government intend to ensure that there is enough investment in social housing for them to honour their commitment to bring all council housing up to a decent standard within 10 years?
My right hon. Friend said earlier that council tenants would decide the future of their housing. If tenants vote against stock transfer, will the amount that would have been available for that process be available for investment in housing that remains in council ownership?

Mr. Raynsford: As my hon. Friend says, we believe that it is for tenants to determine the best option. We have provided four options for the future of council housing, all of which include increased resources.
It is right for tenants to decide in the light of local circumstances. We expect about 200,000 properties to transfer from local authorities to registered social landlords, but that will be determined by tenants. We expect substantial investment through the new major repairs allowance, thereby enabling local authorities to improve the condition of their stock. We expect a take-up of the new arrangements for arm's-length companies, under which local authorities will qualify for additional capital allocations; and we expect increased allocations through the fourth option, the private finance initiative.
By means of a range of different provision, we will ensure a substantial increase enabling us to meet our target of bringing all social housing up to a decent standard by 2010.

Railtrack

Mr. Andrew Robathan: When he last met representatives of Railtrack to discuss investment in the rail network. [143971]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): Ministers meet Railtrack from time to time to discuss matters of mutual interest. Most recent meetings have been in the forum of the rail recovery action group.

Mr. Robathan: The news today is full of the crisis in investment in the railways. [Laughter.] As I have said, the news today is full of the crisis in investment in the railways. Can the Minister explain how the Government's intervention in the make-up of the board of Railtrack—


which has resulted in a 10 per cent. drop in the share price—will help to lever-in private investment, which is necessary for the Government's 10-year plan?

Mr. Hill: It is a bit of a liberty for a representative of the Conservative party to talk of a crisis in the railway industry. It was, after all, the Conservatives who undersold Railtrack for £1.9 billion in a botched privatisation that left the rail network starved of investment.
When the Tories left office, Railtrack was £700 million behind with its rail investment, which the Rail Regulator described as wholly unacceptable, notwithstanding the clear difficulties experienced in the rail industry—difficulties experienced by Railtrack this year.
So far, Railtrack has invested £1.2 billion in the industry. At the end of this year, it will have invested £2.5 billion. Such levels of investment are unprecedented: they did not occur under British Rail, or under the previous Government.

Mr. Peter Snape: Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem of chronic under-investment in the rail industry goes back at least two decades, and pre-dates the botched privatisation by a long time? Will he reiterate, for the benefit of those who may not have heard or understood him earlier, that investment is currently at historically high levels? Will he confirm for those of us who worked for the railways that people who call for the renationalisation of the industry must convince us that the Treasury will make a better fist of running it in the future than it ever did in the past?

Mr. Hill: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. It is true that we are now experiencing unparalleled levels of investment in rail infrastructure. As for my hon. Friend's remarks about the oft-mentioned probability of renationalisation, the Government have no such plans. The rail industry has experienced sufficient instability in the aftermath of its fragmentation into 100 pieces by the previous Conservative Government. The cost of renationalisation would amount to at least £5 billion, all of which would go into the pockets of shareholders. We believe that, for such sums, there are better investment purposes in the rail infrastructure.

Mr. Don Foster: Notwithstanding the Minister's view on Railtrack's position, does he accept at least that the City has, in effect, put Railtrack on the critical list, its credit rating might be downgraded and there is even talk of Railtrack pulling out of the second stage of the channel tunnel rail link? In those circumstances, what will the Government do? In particular, if part of the solution is to speed up already planned public investment in Railtrack, will the Minister at least agree to match that investment with increased public control over how the money is spent?

Mr. Hill: As for Railtrack's financial position, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that yesterday Railtrack announced that it accepted the Rail Regulator's review of its access charges. It is looking for a successful conclusion of discussions with the Strategic Rail Authority and the Government on the timing of certain payments due under the review. The option of an interim review of on-going maintenance costs and other matters with the Office of the Rail Regulator remains open.
The Government have told Railtrack that, in the next few months, we shall hold discussions with it in good faith, but that we cannot anticipate the outcome of those discussions.

Mr. David Chaytor: May I tell my hon. Friend about a particular transport difficulty in my constituency of Bury. North? It is possible to travel from the centre of Bury, South into Manchester, via the excellent Metrolink; and it is possible to travel from the centre of Bury, North to the very important town of Ramsbottom, via the East Lancashire railway; but it is not possible to travel from Ramsbottom into Manchester. Does he share my passion to renew for the citizens of Ramsbottom the rail link directly into Manchester that was cut by Dr. Beeching almost 40 years ago?
One of the options currently under discussion to re-establish the link is to gain access to track into Manchester for which Railtrack is responsible. Will my hon. Friend assure us that, in future discussions with Railtrack, integration with light railway systems and preservation of railway systems—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the Minister knows what the hon. Gentleman wants from the question.

Mr. Hill: Mr. Speaker, as you very well know, as an old railway man myself I am extremely keen to see the restoration of any rail links where possible. I dare say that if I represented Bury, I would share my hon. Friend's passion for the restoration of the Ramsbottom link. A number of options are available for the restoration of such links. I recommend that he deals with his local authorities in investigating the possibility of a rail passenger partnership.

Mr. Robert Syms: The Government must have had confidence in Railtrack's investment programme or, on 16 November, they would not have produced a DETR press release stating that
The Prime Minister today called industry heads to a meeting at Downing Street
on the rail recovery programme. The release clearly stated:
The recovery plans will deliver:
… sustainable timetables, which will be in force for all train companies from Monday—
that was two months ago—
with the prospect of steady improvements over the coming weeks
and that
virtually all serious current disruptions will have been dealt with by the end of the year.
The end of the year has come and gone, but most passengers do not notice any great improvement. Indeed, looking at the Deputy Prime Minister's expression in today's Daily Mail, I do not think that he believes that things have improved. We now have a new date—Easter—for improvements. Do the Government consider that date to be the judge and jury of their stewardship of the rail industry?

Mr. Hill: As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister explained in answer to a previous question, the announcement before Christmas was made on the basis of


promises made by the late chief executive of Railtrack. We are now aware, of course, that there is a promise from Railtrack that 85 per cent. of the system will be returned to normal by the end of this month, with the prospect of the entire system operating normally by Easter. We take that promise very seriously and we expect the rail industry to deliver on it.

Aircraft Fumes

Dr. Ian Gibson: If he will list the types of aircraft which exude smoke odours and fumes into their cabins. [143972]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Mullin): The safety regulation group of the Civil Aviation Authority receives reports of smoke, odours and fumes entering the cabins of all UK-registered passenger aircraft types. Analysis of the 171 incidents reported in the year ending 30 June 2000, resulting from a variety of causes, indicated no significant pattern regarding aircraft type. Only 14 related to oil contamination and none suggests any risk to health and safety.

Dr. Gibson: Does my hon. Friend have any knowledge or figures on incidences where the cabin crew or the pilot became ill from causes unknown? Does he have a view on today's tabloid headline in the Daily Express about deep-vein thrombosis and whether the figures purported in that article are truisms or, as I think, guesstimates?

Mr. Mullin: As I said, none of the 171 incidents reported in the year up to 30 June 2000 was deemed to pose a serious risk to the health or safety of pilots. Should an incident pose a serious risk to health or safety, the Civil Aviation Authority would oversee a more detailed investigation. Let me take the opportunity to comment on the irresponsible story in the Daily Express this morning. It was based almost entirely on the word of one Mr. Farrol Khan, who runs something called the aviation health institute, of which, so far as we can tell, he is the only member. Mr. Khan gave evidence to the excellent inquiry into aviation health conducted by the Lords Select Committee, which described his evidence as
nonsense … careless with facts … we ha ye been concerned at the confused thinking, lack of substance and erroneous statements in some of the other material presented to us and the public by Mr. Khan, the institute's founder director—
and only director, as far as we can tell. It continued:
In spite of his evident enthusiasm for his cause, sadly we have not found him to be a reliable source or scientific and medical information.
This is a serious issue. It is right that it should be taken seriously. The Government are taking it seriously, but foolish reports of this nature are not helpful and any evidence from Mr. Khan should come with a Government health warning attached.

Mr. John Bercow: How many complaints from members of the public have been received about smoke odours and fumes in aircraft cabins? How do those figures compare with the number of complaints received over, say, the past three years from members of the public, passengers on aircraft who have

suffered colds, coughs, sore throats and other ailments as a result of the increasingly unsatisfactory circulation of air on aircraft?

Mr. Mullin: As I said, 171 incidents have been reported from all sources, including members of the public. I do not have a breakdown as regards air quality. The Lords Select Committee produced an excellent report, which I commend to the hon. Gentleman. The Government are taking it seriously. We have commissioned research to see what gaps there are in our knowledge, and we shall take any measures that are necessary. However, it is possible to exaggerate in this area and I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will keep a sense of perspective.

Regional Air Links

Mr. David Stewart: If he will make a statement on regional air links with Heathrow Airport. [143973]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Mullin): The Government acknowledge the social and economic benefits of air links between London and the regions of the United Kingdom. However, demand for take-off and landing slots at Heathrow greatly exceeds capacity. Slots are allocated by an independent co-ordinator. The Government have very limited powers of intervention; to date, they have concluded that no regional air services into Heathrow qualify for a public services obligation, which would enable slots to be protected.

Mr. Stewart: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for that answer. Does he share my view that regional air links are crucial for business, for tourism and, indeed, for inward investment, but that there is a worrying trend for carriers to cut regional air services in favour of more lucrative international destinations? May I press my hon. Friend on public service obligations? Does he agree that they are the only real way to guarantee a future for rural, regional air services?

Mr. Mullin: We certainly accept that there is a case for good regional air services into London. What we do not accept—as my hon. Friend will recall from the discussions we held when he came to see me—is that all those services can go into Heathrow, which is heavily over-subscribed.
Regions must wean themselves off Heathrow and consider not only the other big London airports, but other solutions—such as developing international services out of Edinburgh, Glasgow, Manchester or Newcastle. That is where the future lies, given the heavy congestion in our airspace. I understand that the

highlands and islands airports are exploring the potential for direct flights between Inverness and Amsterdam. That is a sensible solution to the difficulty outlined by my hon. Friend. However, as far as I am aware, there is no threat to the four flights a week from Inverness to Gatwick.

Bedford Hospital

Dr. Liam Fox: (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the proposed inquiry into the storage of corpses at Bedford hospital.

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): As Members are aware, last week the bodies of certain deceased patients were inappropriately kept in a chapel of rest at Bedford hospital.
Let me say at the outset that what happened at Bedford hospital was totally and utterly unacceptable. Patients and their families have a right to be treated with dignity and respect at all times, in all parts of the national health service. In this case, they were not. We have a responsibility to get to the bottom of what went wrong in Bedford.
Over the weekend, an investigation was begun by the eastern regional office of the NHS executive. An initial report was made verbally to the NHS chief executive, Mr. Nigel Crisp. The final report of the full investigation will be published. I will ensure that it is placed in the Library.
I am advised by Mr. Crisp that the initial findings on this incident identified a failure of management within the trust. The trust chief executive, Mr. Ken Williams, has stepped down. In the circumstances, that was the right thing to do.
In the past, there were no clear guidelines about how dignity and respect for deceased patients should be ensured. The NHS now has guidelines that emphasise the need for standards to respect patients' dignity. The guidelines were issued by my Department to every hospital in May last year. The guidance was repeated in November last year. In Bedford, that guidance was not adequately implemented.
The preliminary inquiries appear to show that in the past, when the mortuary facility was full, the deceased were kept in the chapel of rest. Following the issue of guidance in May, however, an extra purpose-built mortuary facility was purchased it a cost of about £20,000. I am advised that the additional facility was at no stage full. It was functioning normally, apart from a minor problem with the doors that was reported on Monday of last week, but final action about that was not taken until last Thursday. During that period last week, bodies were placed inappropriately in the chapel of rest. No policies and procedures were in place in the hospital to ensure that the bodies of deceased patients were treated with dignity and respect at all times. This was not a cash problem in the hospital; it was not a capacity problem in the hospital: it was a management problem in the hospital—a failure to implement clear national guidelines and resolve a clear local problem immediately. The issue should and could have been sorted out on the spot.
Instead, deceased patients were denied their dignity. That should never happen in any part of the NHS, and those who say that what happened in one part of Bedford hospital is a reflection of what happens throughout NHS hospitals are simply wrong. They do not do justice to the efforts of the 1 million people who work in the health service, who strive day in, day out to maintain and to raise standards for patients.
It is deeply regrettable that decisions taken inside Bedford hospital prevented deceased patients from receiving the respect that their relatives had every right to expect from an NHS hospital. Yesterday, the NHS chief executive wrote to all trusts reminding them of their duty to treat the deceased with dignity and sensitivity, in line with the guidance that we issued last year.
The Health and Safety Executive will visit Bedford hospital on 18 January. The independent inspectorate for the NHS, the Commission for Health Improvement, will begin its inspection on 29 January. This matter will now be covered as part of its wider inspection of the hospital.
The events that took place in Bedford last week should never have happened, and need never have happened. I am deeply sorry that they did.

Dr. Fox: I think that everyone would accept that what we have witnessed is indeed a national scandal, and we all wish to send our sympathy to the relatives whose loved ones were treated so appallingly; we can only imagine their distress.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that such events have been going on for years at Bedford hospital, summer and winter? How often has the same thing happened? The shortage of pathology facilities has been raised by consultants, but not until the pictures appeared in the papers was any action taken. Indeed, it seems that, yesterday, the most urgent task for the consultants was to find out who had leaked the picture.
Is it true that the hospital's chairman was also asked to resign, but declined to do so? What contact has the NHS had with relatives who may be seeking to take legal action? How many other hospitals have similar pathology problems, and how many other scapegoat resignations can we expect? The Secretary of State said nothing about a proposed inquiry, despite the fact that that possibility has been widely mentioned in the newspapers.
These events are symptomatic of a wider problem. Indeed, one of the hospital consultants said that health service managers were being prevented from spending funds on pathology facilities, but scapegoated when problems arose. He continued:
The Government forces the managers to spend money on political initiatives such as the waiting list initiative, rather than on improving pathology facilities … We see pathology as a priority but Mr. Milburn … would rather it was spent on treating non-urgent cases within 18 months.
The Secretary of State is right to say that what happened was not caused by a cash problem—but it is not simply a local problem either. The NHS is being used to deliver ministerial targets, rather than dealing with the clinical problems of doctors and their patients. There is no point in the Secretary of State trying to hide behind the good reputation of medical staff, when his policy is undermining their value.
The Prime Minister talks about patients being treated on the basis of clinical priority, yet the Secretary of State sends in waiting list hit teams to ensure that those in the NHS do his bidding. The simple truth is that the Government have increasingly appointed Labour party stooges to run the health service, as Dame Rennie Fritchie said in her damning report. Bedford hospital's chairman, who is a serving Labour county councillor, must not be involved in, or in charge of, any inquiry.
This horrendous episode has blown the lid on the Government's incestuous and corrupting running of the NHS. This is one occasion when the Secretary of State cannot blame the previous Government, funding or the management. These are his priorities, carried out by his people, on his watch, and it is his responsibility.

Mr. Milburn: On the hon. Gentleman's specific questions, the anecdotal evidence shows that this sort of practice has been going on for a number of years, but I am absolutely determined to get to the bottom of it. I hope that the investigation will report next week, and when its report is published and laid before the House, right hon. and hon. Members will be able to see for themselves exactly how long the practice has been going on. Let me emphasise that this sort of practice has absolutely no place in a modern national health service, and we will do everything that we can to help to eradicate it.
On the investigation's independence, I made it clear in my statement that an investigation is being undertaken, and the work of the independent inspectorate, the Commission for Health Improvement, CHI, will complement it. As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, the commission—in Committee during the passage of the Health Act 1999 he opposed its establishment—will publish its conclusions. Again, I give an undertaking that those conclusions will be published in full. Although CHI's final conclusions are not normally placed in the Library, I will do precisely that in this instance. I am not aware of whether the chairman was asked to resign, but the investigation will no doubt reveal that. Again, the report will be published in full and made available to hon. Members.
Many people in the House and outside will conclude that, given the circumstances that we are discussing, it was a mistake for the hon. Gentleman to indulge in a party political tirade. What happened in Bedford was wrong. It should have been avoided. It could have been avoided. It is now being dealt with, but it is simply not true to say that it is typical of NHS staff or the wider health service; nor do I believe that it negates the real progress and improvements that are taking hold in many parts of the NHS thanks to the investment and the reforms that the Government are making.

Mr. Patrick Hall: May I tell my right hon. Friend that after the understandable shock and amazement at the events at Bedford hospital last week, most people, including the relatives of those who unfortunately died at the hospital during the past few weeks, want to see firm action to put the problem right? They want constructive, critical questions to be asked about the practice so that it does not happen again, and they will not be impressed by some of the cheap party political comments that we have just heard. Given that we are talking about the dead having been treated with a lack of respect and dignity, those comments have come across to me and many others as remarks that do not show respect to those people.
May I thank my right hon. Friend and his Department for the swift action taken yesterday to investigate events at Bedford hospital? May I thank him also for the speedy interim conclusions that were arrived at yesterday?
I welcome my right hon. Friend's decision to extend CHI's already planned inspection of Bedford hospital at the end of the month to include the management problems

that are still being revealed. Does he agree that a root-and-branch shake-up of management practices at Bedford hospital is needed? Although there is always a case for more resources in the NHS, what happened last week was clearly nothing to do with resources; it was to do with management.
I seek my right hon. Friend's assistance with regard to the relatives of people who have died recently at Bedford hospital, some of whom have contacted me, to say that in the past day or so they have asked the hospital management whether their relatives were those left on the floor in the undignified way that has been described. Unfortunately, as of this moment, the hospital has been unable to give anyone any information; indeed, some have been told that information will not be available for at least a week. Will my right hon. Friend personally assist me in ensuring that my constituents get the information to which they are entitled, so that they can grieve?

Mr. Milburn: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. We spoke last night about some of these issues. He is right to emphasise the important point that this matter is not about cash, resources or the capacity of the mortuary facilities because, as I said, at no point were those facilities fully used. Still less is this matter about clinical priorities or waiting lists. This was a management failure in one part of one hospital. However, I suspect that it reveals a more endemic problem in the management culture in that hospital.
My hon. Friend rightly raised the concerns of his constituents and the many relatives who are still grieving and who are deeply upset about what has happened in Bedford. He is right to say that at the moment we are unable to say which patients were inappropriately kept in the chapel of rest. I asked that question of the eastern regional office of the NHS executive just a few hours ago. Bearing in mind my hon. Friend's comments, I will urge the regional office to try to get to the bottom of the matter and to find out precisely who was treated in that inappropriate and appalling fashion. As soon as we have answers, we will of course make them available to my hon. Friend and, mole important, to the relatives of those who died.

Mr. Nick Harvey: I echo the concerns of those who have said that the procedures at Bedford hospital failed to preserve the dignity of the deceased. However, I do not believe that their dignity will have been in any way enhanced by the contribution of the Conservative party spokesman, the hon Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox).
I welcome the fact that the chief executive at Bedford hospital has accepted responsibility in this matter and done the honourable thing by tendering his resignation. Many others in the health service have failed to do so when equally, if not more, significant errors have been made. I welcome the fact that the Government have twice issued guidelines about the dignity of the deceased. I welcome also the recent remarks of the chief medical officer, who signals that the Department of Health and the NHS will in future have a better attitude to the issue of organs that are retained after autopsies in hospitals. What steps can the Secretary of State take to ensure that all


hospitals throughout the country have adequate mortuary resources to give practical effect to the guidelines that he has issued?

Mr. Milburn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his considered remarks. He is right to say that there are wider issues that we must think about, particularly in response to the Alder Hey inquiry, which has now reported. He is aware that, last week, the chief medical officer, Professor Liam Donaldson, Held a summit not far from this place about the terrible issue of retained organs in the NHS. I will seek to make a statement on that before too long.
As for the specific issue raised by the hon. Gentleman concerning mortuary facilities in the NHS, as I said in my statement, the chief executive of the NHS, Nigel Crisp, contacted all the trusts in the country yesterday, asking for assurance that the guidelines that we issued in May last year and repeated last November were being adhered to in all parts of the country. We have now received those assurances from all the trusts. I expect all the trusts to adhere precisely to the letter of that guidance, and I certainly do not want a repeat of this sort of incident in any part of the NHS anywhere.

Ms Margaret Moran: I thank my right hon. Friend for his sympathetic, sombre and swift response to the incident, which is in sharp contrast to the reaction of the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), who has done a great disservice to, the families of the deceased.
May I tell my right hon. Friend that the whole issue has sent shockwaves, not just through that particular hospital, but through Bedfordshire health authority as well? Having spoken to the chair of the authority a short while ago, I am assured that a review is also being carried out at my own hospital, Luton and Dunstable hospital. It is a great pity and tremendous shame for us all that the failure to fix a door handle, which appears to be the root of the problem, should undermine tic badly positive work that is taking place in Bedfordshire health authority, not least in Luton and Dunstable hospital, where a new accident and emergency unit has jus opened.
Will my right hon. Friend therefore undertake to look more closely at the estate management and maintenance practices of health authorities and hospitals, which seem to underlie the problem? More particularly, will he assist in rebuilding morale and confidence—not just among staff, but among users of our health service—which is being badly undermined by the climate of fear that Conservative Members are seeking to engender?

Mr. Milburn: As for the specific issues raised by my hon. Friend, preliminary investigation results indicate that that was precisely the problem. Unbelievably, there was a problem with the hinges and door handles in the temporary mortuary facilities, which could have been dealt with on the Monday. It was reported to the works department in the hospital then, but no one regarded it as sufficiently urgent to deal with immediately. As I said, it was not until late on Thursday that the problem was rectified. The problem could have be en rectified at once: it could have been rectified literally overnight.
There were some faults at those facilities, but what concerns me more is the fact that although there was a specific problem in one part of the hospital, there was no

reporting mechanism up the line to ensure that it was dealt with at a more senior level in the organisation. The investigation, led by Mr. Houghton, the regional director of the eastern regional office, will need to look at that extremely carefully, and it is right that it should do so. There are likely to be general lessons to be learned, and if there are we shall seek to make them available to the NHS in Bedfordshire and across the whole country.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: The Secretary of State rightly recognises that what happened at Bedford hospital was unacceptable. We all share and sympathise with the distress of families whose loved ones were affected. Does the Secretary of State accept that, when considering the chief executive, Ken Williams, who has taken the blame and resigned, we should remember that a great deal of good work has been done in Bedford hospital during the many years in which he has been in office? He has done much, above and beyond ordinary working hours, to help patients in the vicinity.
Is not the key question whether there are adequate mortuary facilities in Bedford hospital and hospitals throughout the country? It is plain from what I have been told that, until the supplementary mortuary was provided, mortuary facilities at Bedford hospital were inadequate.

Mr. Milburn: indicated dissent.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I see that the Secretary of State is shaking his head, but will he ensure that the inquiry publishes the proportion of each hospital's mortuary facilities in relation to the population that it serves so that, in future, the House and the country can be satisfied that the NHS generally provides adequate facilities for the inevitable deaths that occur and for their proper and humane management?

Mr. Milburn: I am sure that, as a result of the investigation, there will be some lessons that we will want to extend across the NHS, but, with the greatest respect to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, he is wrong about mortuary capacity in the hospital. As I understand it, the sequence of events is this: there had been problems, perhaps going back over several years, and the investigation will get to the bottom of that. In 1999, the hospital installed an additional temporary mortuary facility. Last year, it decided to purchase that temporary mortuary facility rather than rent it again.
As I understand it, the permanent mortuary facility at Bedford hospital has 24 places. The additional capacity that has been made available over the past few months has an additional 15 places. In other words, there are places for 39 deceased patients. At no point last week was all that capacity being used. That is the essential point that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should bear in mind. It was nothing to do with cash. It was nothing to do with capacity. It was nothing to do with a shortage of resources. It was everything to do with the fact that a very small problem became a very big problem for many patients and their relatives.

Mr. Brian White: Last night, I received an e-mail from a constituent whose uncle died at Bedford hospital last week. She says:
As someone who voted labour for the first time … I don't want any more privatisation—what we've had so far hasn't worked.


What I do want is … a real commitment to increased public service spending whereby the emergency which existed at Bedford can never happen again.
Will the Secretary of State deal with the perception to which he has referred? Funding was not the problem, but, as the comments of the Opposition spokesperson showed, everything that goes wrong in the health service is automatically turned into a funding issue. Will he assure the House that he will deal with the perception held by the general public as well as the reality of what he has discussed?

Mr. Milburn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. In this case, we should all dwell on the facts of the matter. In this case, I believe that making generalisations and party political generalisations, from either side of the House, is peculiarly unhelpful. If people stop to examine the facts and what went wrong, they will quickly realise that, despite the generalisations and sweeping accusations that are flying around the Chamber and the media, those comments are wrong. That is why we have tried to act as quickly as we can.
When I first heard about the matter on Sunday, I contacted the NHS chief executive, Nigel Crisp, and asked him to get on to it and undertake the investigation straight away. To his credit and to the credit of the eastern regional office of the NHS executive, they did so immediately and made contact with Bedford hospital. As a consequence, I have been able to say some of what I have said today. The truth is that we shall have to wait a while before we get the full results of the investigation. If, at that point, Members on either side of the House want to make sweeping generalisations, that will be a matter for them to determine. At this stage, we do not have all the facts, and what facts we have suggest that there was a management difficulty in a part of the hospital. The problem was that it was not gripped at the top of the hospital.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: Pending the publication of the report, many will accept the Secretary of State's initial assurances that there was a failure of management and that sufficient mortuary facilities were available. Will he turn his mind to a broader connected issue? There will be times when hospital mortuaries are full. Will he publish—at least for the eastern region, but preferably for the country—what mortuary facilities hospitals should turn to if their own mortuaries become full? If that information were in the public domain, it would provide considerable reassurance to patients and might help the Government to deflect some of the understandable criticism from distressed relatives. I hope that he will take that suggestion seriously.

Mr. Milburn: I am happy to consider that suggestion. I shall double check, but I think that in the guidance we suggested what hospitals should do if they were concerned about their mortuary facilities not being adequate, especially at certain times of the year. I shall consider the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion and reply to him in writing.

Dr. Howard Stoate: May I say how disappointed I am that the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) tried to turn this tragic incident into another bandwagon? This is clearly a very serious issue. I am

pleased that my right hon. Friend supported the 1 million-plus staff who do an excellent job in the NHS. Does he recognise that such a tragic incident undermines public confidence in the NHS and reduces morale among its staff? What can he do following this incident to reassure people that, when their relatives enter the NHS to obtain treatment from dedicated staff, they will be looked after with respect and dignity, and that this incident is very unlikely to recur?

Mr. Milburn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. First, we must take appropriate action where the problem has occurred, and that has happened and will continue to happen not just in the next few days but in the next few weeks, especially when the HSE and CHI undertake their inspections of hospital services in Bedford. It will be very important indeed to reassure the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall), who use Bedford hospital, that this terrible event was out of the ordinary for that hospital.
Secondly, we must remind people that, however awful this incident was—it was dreadful and completely unacceptable—it is not the custom and practice of NHS hospitals, it is not the custom and practice of NHS staff and it is certainly not the custom and practice of the national health service as a whole.

Mr. Graham Brady: The Secretary of State knows that in November last year I asked a number of parliamentary questions about mortuaries in the NHS following serious concerns about the mortuary at Trafford general hospital, which serves my constituents. At that time, it came to light from the responses to those questions that there is no national inspection regime for NHS mortuaries, and that the Department of Health cannot tell me which NHS mortuaries meet necessary minimum, standards. Surely that situation cannot be allowed to continue. Will the right hon. Gentleman take responsibility for establishing which NHS mortuaries meet necessary minimum standards, and will he publish that information?

Mr. Milburn: We shall certainly consider those issues as part of the wider implications arising from the current investigation into the incident at Bedford hospital.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Does the Secretary of State share my unease, and perhaps surprise, that it was necessary to issue guidance about the correct treatment of bodies? He told us that that was done twice. Was that guidance issued because other concerns had reached him about the treatment of dead bodies? Although I accept what the Secretary of State says, and that for the purposes of these o changes we are not dealing with a funding issue; nevertheless, there must have been more than one person involved in the treatment of those bodies. There may have been tons or there may have been dozens. Although I accept that it was a management failure and not a financial problem, I have a lingering unease about the fact that so many people must have felt it appropriate to treat bodies in that way in Bedford hospital. That raises the concern that the practice is more endemic and widespread than the right hon. Gentleman would ever want it to be. Will he comment on those propositions?

Mr. Milburn: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the problem has occurred before. I am in no way making


a party political point, but there were issues before the general election about mortuary facilities being full at some hospitals. The right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) will remember that. It is, therefore, important that we invest appropriately. Part of the reason behind the guidance was to try to impress on local hospitals that they need to do just that because, in the end, they have to take the right local decision. I actually agree with what the hon. Member for Woodspring said in last week's detate on the Health and Social Care Bill. He conceded:
It is impossible to run an organisation that employs almost 1 million people from behind a single Minister's desk.—[Official Report, 10 January 2001; Vol. 360, C. 1096.]
We have a duty to locate respossibility where it belongs. The responsibility for rut ping individual local hospitals rests with people who work in them. The responsibility that we have to discharge as a national Government and, perhaps, as a Parliament, is to try to assure people that national standards are maintained as far possible, and that we police and monitor them so that patients in every part of the country are confident that they are getting access to full and fair services. That is precisely why we issued guidance twice last year.

Dr. Peter Brand: I strongly welcomed the guidelines when the Government issued them. Investment in mortuaries is always placed behind investment in, for example, children's wards. It is important that it is given due credence in our planning. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that what happened at Bedford hospital was not unusual in the national health service or in private undertaking establishments during the winter? I am not saying that it is an acceptable practice, merely that it is not unusual.
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the most worrying aspects of the case is that it took a picture in the newspapers, which really denied those people their dignity and respect, for action to be taken? I cannot condone what the press or, indeed, the person who took the picture did, but is it not sad that we do not have a better way of getting action when there is a problem than literally having a shroudwave on the front page?

Mr. Milburn: Much of what the hon. Gentleman says makes absolute sense. I very much lope that in hospitals up and down the country, those people who are responsible for running them and the clinicians who are engaged in providing such services realise the importance of them.
As for Bedford hospital, I understand that in the next financial year it will receive £1.5 million extra to spend on capital projects. It will be for that Hospital to determine where best to spend the extra investment. That is right and appropriate because the people who best know the needs of patients who use the hospital are the people who run the organisation—the doctors, nurses, managers and so on. It is our responsibility to give them the tools to do that job, such as the resources and the framework, including the national standards by which they should abide precisely to avoid some of the problems that the hon. Gentleman raises.

Mr. Nigel Evans: It was an appalling photograph and I am sure that the whole House sends its condolences to the relatives of the deceased.
Bedford hospital may now receive inquiries from relatives of the deceased for information. Will the Secretary of State ensure that they get proper and accurate information and, indeed, any counselling that they may seek because of their distress? I heard him say that he believes the incident to be unique to Bedford hospital, and we can only hope that that is the case. Can he assure us that proper investigations will take place and that the procedure will be correctly followed by all hospitals? Indeed, what whistleblowing arrangements are available to anyone who works within the NHS who believes that procedures are not being properly followed, so that respect and dignity for the deceased can be restored?

Mr. Milburn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. On the question of providing information to relatives, as I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford—many of his constituents have inevitably contacted his local offices—we will try to obtain what information we can. I am trying to impress on the hospital and the local health service that they need to get the appropriate information as quickly as they can to the relatives. That must be the right thing to do.
On the position in other hospitals, as I said in response to the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey), yesterday we asked trusts to assure us that the guidance that we issued in May and November 2000 had been and is being adhered to. We have received responses from all parts of the country, and I have received that assurance. As I am sure the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) is aware, I have to rely on such assurances.
We have also issued clear guidance to the service on whistleblowing and stipulated that all trusts should have a policy in place so that staff at any level in an NHS organisation—be they the most senior or the most junior—have a legitimate opportunity to raise their concerns in public on behalf of the public. I expect that to be the position in Bedford and in every hospital in the land.

Mrs. Eleanor Laing: I agree with the Secretary of State that this is a serious matter that should be properly investigated. However, will he please explain how CHI can carry out an independent inquiry when the commission is not an independent body, but is obliged to take instructions from the Government?

Mr. Milburn: The hon. Lady is wrong about that. CHI is independent from Government in precisely the way that the inspectorate—

Mrs. Laing: No, it is not.

Mr. Milburn: With respect, when the hon. Lady asks a question, I shall answer it if she gives me the opportunity to do so. CHI is independent in precisely the same way as Ofsted is independent in relation to schools. CHI is not run by me or the Government; it is run by the people who are responsible for running its services. It reports independently and it publishes its own conclusions and findings.
Let me be clear. The hon. Lady wants to have her cake and eat it. She wants me to instruct CHI to do something, and I have done that. I said that it should take on board the events that have happened in the past week in Bedford


in the inspection that it will carry out from the end of this month. That is the right thing to do. As I said to the House, alongside the normal procedure of the commission publishing its conclusions, I will also, as a matter of courtesy to the House, make those conclusions available in the Library so that all Members can see for themselves what the results of the independent inspection in Bedford throw up.

Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): I beg to move,
That the proviso in paragraph (2)(ii) of Standing Order No. 86 (Nomination of standing committees) shall not apply to the Children's Commissioner or Wales Bill.
Paragraph (2)(ii) of the Standing Order provides that
for the consideration of any public Bill relating exclusively to Wales, the committee shall he so constituted as to include all Members sitting for constituencies in Wales.
We have considered the implications for the Bill of the Standing Order and we believe that the paragraph should be disapplied. If the Committee were so constituted as to include all Members sitting for constituencies in Wales, it would be very large and unwieldy. In addition, even if we added hon. Members to make it a Committee of 50, it would not be possible to achieve a political balance that reflected that in the House.
This is a small Bill of only eight clauses, but it is an important one for Wales, with wide-ranging implications for the welfare and interests of children in Wales. Many Members sitting for Welsh constituencies will have a keen interest in the Bill, bat they will have an opportunity to contribute to the Second Reading debate and to be involved on Third Reading and on Report.
The Committee needs to be kept small and focused and it needs to reflect the political balance of the House, so as to ensure that there is a full and frank debate on the Bill's provisions. In the interests of efficiency and of achieving a political balance that reflects that of the House, I commend the motion to the House.

Mr. Robert Walter: This is the first Wales-only Bill since devolution, so the motion is, constitutionally, important. That will become clear as we proceed with the Bill because one of the questions that Conservative Members will ask is why similar provision has not been made for England.
My position on the Bill is clear. I was a member of the Select Committee on Health that recommended such a commissioner for England and Wales. Furthermore, the Opposition made it clear during the passage of the Care Standards Act 2000 that they envisaged a role for this form of official.
Under the Government of Wales Act 2000, the National Assembly has powers to make and amend secondary legislation, but can only request primary legislation of this House. We believe that it is appropriate that legislation that affects England and Wales should be considered by a Committee of Members from England and Wales. For the avoidance of doubt, I refer to clause 8(4), which states:
This Act does not extend to Scotland or Northern Ireland.
There is, however, a certain irony in these proceedings. On 9 June 1992, during the passage of the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill, the Secretary of State for Wales, when he was Opposition spokesman on Welsh affairs, said:
In April 1907, the then President of the Board of Education, and my direct predecessor as Member for Torfaen, Mr. Reginald McKenna, spoke in the House on behalf of the Government and in support of Standing Otter No. 86, which the Government, in their arrogance, are proposing to abandon. The House believed 85 years


ago—and made that belief resolute by a Division—that Welsh Members should have the same rights and privileges as their Scottish counterparts …—[0fficial Report, 9 Jun 1992; Vol. 209, c. 251.]
The Secretary of State—as he now is—went on, at column 252, to say that the circumstances then were different. They were also completely different when the House—under a Labour Government—discussed the Welsh Development Agency Bill in June 1975 and the Development of Rural Wales Bill in July 1976. Those Bills were supported by Members on both sides of the House. There is clearly a parallel with that today.
There is an inconsistency in the Standing Order, which we might consider at a later stage, because we are now in a post-devolution situation. Standing Order No. 86(2)(i)—the provision that precedes the one that we are debating and which applies to Scotland—is clearly redundant. I suggest that paragraph (2)(ii) might also be redundant. I seek an assurance of the Minister that members of the Committee should be drawn from England and Wales, and not from Scotland and Northern Ireland. I am sure that the Minister will be able to give me such an assurance, and, on that basis, we are content with the motion.

Mr. Simon Thomas: I thank the Secretary of State for having the courtesy to speak to the motion. Too many motions have been moved formally in the past, and I am pleased that he attempted to justify the provision. That is welcome.
The Secretary of State has missed the reason why we support the motion, which is set out in the debate to which the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) referred. The Secretary of State—as he now is—said in that debate:
All those years ago, Members believed that argument was right, and we do not believe that it has changed with the passage of time.—[Official Report, 9 June 1992; Vol. 209. c. 251.]
The Secretary of State should explain what has changed with the passage of time between 1992 and today. I suggest that the change involves flu establishment of the National Assembly for Wales. The Assembly has debated the Bill and the principles behind it, supports it and wants to see it passed as swiftly and effectively as possible. That extra legislative scrutiny has been introduced, and has worked on the Bill, so my colleagues and I will support the motion tonight, on this occasion only.
We do not agree with the hon. Member for North Dorset that Standing Order No. 86 (2)(ii) is necessarily redundant. There may come a time when the House will debate Wales-only legislation that has not been debated by the National Assembly and has not had the democratic scrutiny that the Secretary of State wanted in 1992, and which I hope he still wants.

Mr. John Redwood: The hon. Gentleman seemed to imply that if we passed the motion it would save a fair amount of time. Will he give us an idea of how much less time it would take to pass the legislation if we adopted the motion?

Mr. Thomas: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, but I do not want to trespass on what the Secretary of State said, because I accept the argument that he advanced when he opened the debate. The motion will speed up the Bill's passage, but, importantly, it will not do so to the detriment of democratic scrutiny by Welsh

Members because, in the face of opposition from the Conservative party, the National Assembly for Wales has been established and has allowed that element of democratic scrutiny to take place.
I am content for the motion to be passed, because we shall do an additional job in scrutinising the Bill in Committee. I hope that members of the Committee will work in tandem with ideas emerging from the National Assembly. If they fail to do so, the whole House will have a chance to amend the Bill on Report.
I hope that the Secretary of State will echo those views and will say clearly that this is a one-off, because of the circumstances in which the Bill has been formulated—through the processes of the National Assembly for Wales. In that context, on this occasion, we shall support the motion.

Mr. Eric Forth: What I suspect some hon. Members thought would be a quick, uncontroversial nod-through has turned into an important debate, because the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) has given the lie to the whole thing.
Before I get into the substance of my remarks, I echo what the hon. Gentleman said and pay tribute to the Secretary of State for doing us the courtesy of coming to the House and, briefly but succinctly, setting out on the Government's behalf what lies behind the motion. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, and I wish that some of his colleagues would follow his example. Perhaps he will have a word at the next Cabinet meeting and say that some measures might get through the House much more painlessly if some of his colleagues did us the courtesy of explaining what they were up to, instead of trying to smuggle things through in the shifty, surreptitious way that has become the practice of the Government.
On the face of it, the motion appears to be a pretty bland measure about which we should not be too worried. The hon. Member for Ceredigion said, "It will be all right, just this once", but as I was listening to the Secretary of State the word "precedent" was floating through my mind, and I began to ask myself three questions. First, why do we have the Standing Order? Secondly, if it is redundant, why have we not revisited it since devolution? Thirdly, what is so special about the motion that would require a rescinding of the Standing Order, and what are all the implications of that?
The Bill may well be one of the less political Bills that the House has had to consider, in which case it is ironic that the Secretary of State should have been so anxious to ensure a proper party political balance on the Standing Committee. It is the wrong way round. Here is a Bill that, on the face of it, may seem to be less party political than most, yet the Secretary of State wants to ask the House to lift the Standing Order so that it has proper party political representation. I am not sure that a Committee of, say, 50, which the Standing Order allows for, would necessarily be a bad thing in this case, because it would allow the unusually large number of Members—all, I suspect, from the same part of the United Kingdom—who, quite properly, are waiting to contribute to the debate, to take part in the Committee. The Secretary of State will be in a


very difficult position if he proposes a Committee of a size that might preclude some of his right hon. and hon. Friends from taking part.

Mr. John Bercow: Would such a large Committee—that is a possibility, and we shall have to see what transpires—provide a justification for a lengthier timetable, or possibly for more careful consideration by the Programming Sub-Committee? I am sure that that will have occurred to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Forth: I was going to move on to the matter of timing. We are being asked to make a decision on the important matter of the Standing Order before we know the size of the Committee. The Secretary of State did not reveal that to us. Perhaps even more important, he did not reveal the time that the Government will impose for consideration in Committee and, as important, for Report and Third Reading. The right hon. Gentleman's argument rested on the proposition that all the Members precluded from the Committee—all that we know about its size is that 50 Members will not serve on it, and we do not know how much time he will allow the Committee—would be able to bob up on Report and Third Reading to say their piece. Before I give my approval to the motion, I would like to know how much time the Government will give for Report and Third Reading.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: If Standing Order 86 is sacrosanct, why did the Government of whom he was a member set it aside on the Welsh Language Act 1993, the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994 and the Cardiff Bay Barrage Act 1993?

Mr. Forth: I am not saying that the Standing Order is sacrosanct. I am simply saying that it was the hon. Member for Ceredigion who said, "Let us lift it just this once; otherwise, the motion is a jolly good idea."
I do not have a fixed view on the way in which the matter is dealt with because, unusually for me, I do not have direct participation. I may even have off at least the early part of the evening. I understand that the Bill is important and that many right hon. and hon. Members will want to take part in the debate.
I have paid my little tribute to the Secretary of State and now I shall be slightly critical of him. He has given us only partial information. He has not told us how many Members the Government will impose on the House as members of the Committee.

Mrs. Jackie Lawrence: I am listening with great interest to what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, especially about the time that will be available to consider the Bill. Is he aware that on 7 November one of his party's colleagues in the National Assembly for Wales said:
Will you assure us—
the question was addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales—
that every effort will be made to fast-track the Bill?
Is this a case of the right not knowing what the extreme right is doing?

Mr. Forth: I am not remotely interested in what the member of some assembly said. This is the House of Commons. From what little I understand of the National Assembly for Wales, it rightly has no legislative powers. We make law in this place. Until a Government or the people of Wales decide otherwise, that is how it will remain. The views of a Member of the Assembly are of no relevance to our deliberations. However, our views have relevance because we are the House of Commons and we are the people—at least for the time being, until the Government give the responsibility to Europe—who make laws in the United Kingdom.
The way in which we make laws is vital. I do not know how many Members now in the Chamber are prepared to buy a pig in a poke or accept what the Secretary of State says and wander off into the fog of the Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill. I am not satisfied. How can we be satisfied that all right hon. and hon. Members who have a legitimate interest in the matter will have sufficient time and opportunity to give it their consideration and make their input if, for example, the Committee were to be very small or if consideration in Committee were to be very short? From what the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mrs. Lawrence) said, she seems to want the process to be "fast tracked".[Interruption.] I thought that she was quoting with approval. If not, I hope that she will tell us. I took it that she was quoting an obscure person with approval, and that that is how the matter rests.

Mrs. Lawrence: I quoted the Conservative Health spokesman from the National Assembly for Wales, Mr. David Melding, who was asking for the Bill to be fast tracked because of time considerations, respecting the fact that this place has responsibility for primary legislation, which is why we arc here. Given the opportunity to set the agenda within the United Kingdom, I would welcome the Bill being fast tricked because of what it can do for children in Wales.

Mr. Forth: I am now even more worried. I should have thought that fast tracking was the last thing that we want in respect of this Bill more than any other. Matters such as those with which the Bill deals must be carefully considered and scrutinised, and legislation on them should not be rushed into. It is unacceptable for the hon. Lady to suggest that such speed would be beneficial. Indeed, I would be surprised and disappointed if her parliamentary colleagues wanted to rush the legislation.
A number of questions have arisen to which we have no answer. The Secretary of State gave us partial information. I am sure that he did not intend to withhold information, but I hope that he will answer the questions for his colleagues, as much as for anybody else. The questions concern the size of the Standing Committee that will consider the Bill and the programming of the Committee stage, Report and Third Reading. We must have information about those matters before we can make the important decision rescinding the Standing Order provision. We need that information whether or not the decision will apply only on this one occasion, as the hon. Member for Ceredigion hoped, whether or not it creates a precedent and whether or not such a precedent already exists, as the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) suggested. All those matters must be resolved before we can decide on the motion.

Mr. Richard Livsey: It is understandable that some hon. Members have reservations about the exceptional circumstances in which the motion has been proposed.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: I am sorry to intervene so soon on my hon. Friend, but I have a question: does he agree that there is something contradictory about the official Opposition's mild criticism of the Secretary of State's position? They have used the same tool to great effect in the past. Indeed, my predecessor, Alex Carlile, said so. Does he further agree that the Secretary of State should have a little humility about the matter, for the simple reason that he made great play of it in debates held in 1992 and 1993?

Mr. Livsey: The Secretary of State certainly dealt with the matter in that way.
The limited powers of the National Assembly for Wales mean that we have to consider the primary legislation in Westminster. However, the Bill's importance means that the Assembly has taken due cognisance of it, debated it and refined proposals for it. I believe that that is an adequate pre-legislative process for due consideration by the House. As things currently stand, the process is in line with that for primary legislation. The Waterhouse report made serious points and exposed serious matters regarding the care of children in Wales. It underlined the urgency of the issue. The Bill Is the first primary legislation on that issue and the Waterhouse report is applied exclusively—perhaps I should say inclusively—to Wales. Those are adequate reasons for agreeing the motion.

Mr. John Redwood: I have no philosophical objection to changing procedures from time to time if circumstances warrant such change. I understand the cross-party feeling in Wales that the legislation should be agreed with all due speed, but I am sure that sensible care and attention is also desired. I regret the dispute between my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who has done sterling work to assert against a reluctant Executive the right of the House to scrutinise and debate, and the desire of many Welsh Members of Parliament and Assembly Members for the Bill to be fast tracked, as the process is called. I hope that all would agree that the Bill should be dealt with expeditiously, but also sensibly and thoroughly.
One of the reasons for this little delay—the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst were a little short, by his usual thorough standards—is that, although the Secretary of State was, unlike some of his colleagues, generous enough to make a statement to the House about his intentions, he was not open enough to enable us to reply "That is a reasonable change; let us go ahead." As our short debate draws—perhaps—to a close, let me press him to try to reassure my right hon. Friend and others that there will be enough time for all Members with legitimate interests to express their views on Report and Third Reading, or that all those with such interests will be invited on to the Standing Committee and will have a chance to speak then. If we
 
knew how many members the Committee will have and what the true party balance will be, and were able to gauge that against the strength of feeling and the numbers in the House, we might feel reassured that the procedure was sensible, rather than another attempt by an Executive in a hurry to stifle legitimate debate.
I hope that at this late—but not too late—stage it will be possible to reassure Members who reasonably say that the House must undertake this legislative task, and must undertake it properly. We could, of course, read the report of the Assembly's debates, but there is nothing like hearing debates in Committee and on the Floor of the House, and being able to able to satisfy ourselves before voting.
I hope the Secretary of State will understand that these are reasonable fears. We need a decent length of time in Committee. We need reassurances about the balance of the Committee, and its ability to absorb what may be the different viewpoints and experiences of Members with a direct interest. I hasten to add that I shall not seek to be involved myself, because the subject is not a specialty of mine, but many others will. We also need to be reassured that there will be enough time for Members who are not privileged to sit on a Committee to make their points when it has completed its deliberations.
I give the Secretary of State two marks out of 10 for letting us know a little of his thinking when he wishes to change the House's procedures. Perhaps I will give him three marks, because it was slightly embarrassing for him to have to do that, in view of his past statements. If he wants the other seven marks, he really ought to tell us how long the Committee will have, who will be on it and why it will produce the right balance between scrutiny and the reflection of opinions in Wales.

Mr. Paul Murphy: The debate has been useful. It has given all Members an opportunity to understand why circumstances have changed since 1992, when I made my remarks from the other side of the House—which, incidentally, echoed what was said in 1907 by a predecessor of mine, the then Liberal Chancellor of the Exchequer, who represented North Monmouthshire.
The right hon. Members for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) raised a number of important constitutional issues, as did the hon. Members for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) and for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey).
What is the difference? Obviously, the difference is that the world has changed in constitutional terms: the way in which Wales is governed has changed. The existence of the Welsh Assembly and the settlement that accompanied its creation mean that Cardiff will deal with secondary legislation, while primary legislation remains a matter for the House of Commons.
That is the big change, but it must also be said that while some Bills have both an English and a Welsh context—we dealt with a number of such Bills last year—others, such as this, deal exclusively with Wales. In such cases, the procedures followed in the Assembly, and the procedures followed by the Government and the Assembly in drawing up the terms of the legislation, are uniquely different from the position before. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire spoke of an extensive process, to which I hope to refer later.
 

The procedures involved are indeed extensive, and have already given all the political parties in Wales an opportunity to deal with the issues in the Bill.

Mr. Simon Thomas: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the legislative protocol between his Department and the Assembly is not quite complete yet? Members might feel more reassured about the change in procedures here when it is complete.

Mr. Murphy: I can confirm that, but the protocol is very close to completion. One of the reasons why it is not complete is that we are using the procedure for the first time only today. Today is the first occasion on which the House has considered an all-Wales Bill—as is its right—reflecting the National Assembly's wishes and desires. We have to learn from our experience. I hope that, within weeks, the protocol will be available for discussion.
The other issue is the nature of the process that will be used during the Bill's passage in the next weeks and months. Although right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned matters that I suspect should be dealt with in a later debate, I shall deal with one or two of them now.

Mr. Öpik: The Minister has clarified why he thinks that the position today is different from that which applied in 1992–93, and I accept the point. However, will today's debates serve as a precedent for similar future debates?

Mr. Murphy: No, but I shall address those issues in a moment.
I should like, first, to deal with the motion, which we shall debate later, and to furnish the House with more details. It is anticipated that, some time after 1 February, the Committee will report the Bill to the House. I understand that the usual channels are considering the composition of the Committee. Nevertheless, it will be composed of 16 members, of whom 10 will be Government Members and four will be official Opposition Members, with two members from each of the other two parties in the House representing constituencies in Wales.
As some hon. Members seem to be concerned about the time issue, I should re-emphasise my remarks on precedent and the nature of the proposed Standing Committee. As I shall explain in much greater detail on Second Reading, the Bill's provisions have not simply just appeared, but were considered at great length, in Cardiff, by all-party Committees of the National Assembly. The Bill does not establish the role of the Children's Commissioner for Wales; that has already been done. Many of the commissioner's functions are already on the statute book, and the provisions that we are discussing will merely extend the commissioner's powers.
As for the Standing Committee that will consider the legislation, about a year ago, the Procedure Committee considered whether the Welsh Grand Committee is the appropriate place in which to consider specifically all-Wales Bills on Second Reading and in Committee. I think that, occasionally, that Committee might be the appropriate place for such consideration. However, I also think that, at this early stage in the devolution settlement, we have to decide those matters Bill by Bill. We should work with the parties in the House to discover what they believe would be the best course of action in relation to time and to the composition of the Standing Committees, so that they include hon. Members from all parties who wish to be represented.
We should also bear in mind that, in addressing the various issues, ultimately we are a United Kingdom Parliament. Therefore, at this stage in the devolution process, it is not easy to be categoric about precisely how we will address these issues in future. However, in relation to representing the views of all the parties in the House and reflecting previous consultation in the National Assembly, I think that we are proposing the most appropriate way in which to consider the Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill.

Mr. Redwood: I am very grateful to the Secretary of State for sharing a little of the Government's confidence with the House; it is a model of how Ministers should do it. It would have been even easier if we had heard his comments at the beginning of the debate. I express sympathy with his view that these are early days, and that he should consider the issues as a United Kingdom Cabinet member and understand that the Bill is United Kingdom legislation. Will he confirm that it is this House that is charged with the sole responsibility for primary legislation, and that this House cannot rely on the debates and views of another place or another Assembly, however good or worthy they may be, because it is this House that has to take responsibility for the resulting legislation?

Mr. Murphy: I confirm that this House, exclusively, deals with primary legislation for Wales. I confirm also that such proposals are the result of a working partnership between the House, the Government and the National Assembly, and that they would not be a matter for the Government's programme unless there were such a working relationship and partnership.
I therefore hope that the House will be convinced by the points that I have made and that we shall proceed to Second Reading.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That the proviso in paragraph (2)(ii) of Standing Order No. 86 (Nomination of standing committees) shall not apply to the Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill.

Orders of the Day — Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill forms a major part of the strategy of the National Assembly for Wales to promote and safeguard the rights and welfare of children in Wales. The Bill also has considerable constitutional significance. It is the first Wales-only Bill to be introduced since the establishment of the National Assembly. It also represents the Assembly breaking new ground in devising a policy to create the first Children's Commissioner in the United Kingdom. Its introduction represents a very significant achievement for the devolution process in Wales and it proves that Wales can bring about radical change via Westminster.
Change has been rapid as well as radical. I said earlier that I would set out the consultation process. The Assembly endorsed the report of its Health and Social Services Committee on a Children's Commissioner in plenary session in June last year. Already at that stage, amendments were in hand to give the commissioner initial powers within the scope of the—then—Care Standards Bill. These were enacted, with the result that the Assembly was able to announce the successful candidate to be the first Children's Commissioner for Wales in December. In the same month—just six months after the Assembly endorsed its report—this Bill to widen the commissioner's powers was introduced to the House. The speed of response is a tribute to the t co-operative working relationship between the Assembly and interested people and organisations in Wales, and between the Government and the National Assembly.
The case for establishing a Children's Commissioner in Wales has its roots, before devolution in the Welsh Office social services White Paper "Building for the Future". It was echoed in calls for a commissioner from such bodies as Children in Wales, the Welsh Local Government Association, evidence to the North Wales child abuse tribunal, and the Welsh Affairs Committee of this House.
Assembly manifesto commitments from Labour, the Liberal Democrats and Plaid Cymru included commitments to consider the establishment of an independent Children's Commissioner for Wales.
I have to say that I am somewhat bewildered by the decision of the Conservative party effectively to oppose the Bill—even if that opposition is dressed up in the disguise of a reasoned amendment. It serves only to remind us all of why the people of Wales returned no Conservatives to this House at the last general election.

Mr. Nigel Evans: I ask the Secretary of State not to play politics with this issue. We are all keen to ensure that children in Wales—and everywhere in the United Kingdom—get the protection that they deserve. He well knows that we t tabled the reasoned amendment so that we can properly debate the issues. As I shall make plain in my speech, we want to strengthen the power of the Children's Commissioner for Wales, not to prohibit it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan I Haselhurst): Order. May I take the opportunity of that intervention to make

good my earlier omission and say that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition?

Mr. Murphy: Your ensuring that the House is aware of that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, gives me the opportunity to invite the House to reflect upon precisely what the amendment says. The nature of reasoned amendments—all of them—is that they start with the phrase
That this House declines to give a Second Reading to the … Bill.
The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) may be able to clarify and explain that, but the fact that the reasoned amendment is on the Order Paper has caused considerable consternation in Wales among members of my party and his party in Wales. I look forward to hearing the hon. Gentleman attempting to reconcile what are clearly major differences between himself and his party in the National Assembly.

Mr. Alun Michael: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the strengths of devolution is that an Assembly Committee dealing specifically with those issues has been able to discuss with all four parties involved—including Conservative representatives—what is needed to make the Children's Commissioner for Wales effective? Is it not a disgrace that, at this late stage, having had that opportunity in Wales, we see the domination of the Conservative party in England as it tries to put a spanner in the works?

Mr. Murphy: As I pointed out to the House a few moments ago, we are all bewildered, perplexed and mystified as to why there has been the obvious change of heart that we shall hear about later from the hon. Member for Ribble Valley when he describes the nature of his amendment. The contrast with Labour is clear and stark; the Bill, like the Care Standards Act 2000, is the product of a strong partnership between the United Kingdom Government and the Assembly Cabinet. That partnership is based on mutual trust and understanding and a shared desire to deliver for the people of Wales.
It seems, however, that the Conservatives have no such desire. Although we await the hon. Gentleman's comments, it would seem, on the face of the matter, that their approach to the Bill is nothing but naked opportunism.
Let me deal, precisely, with the amendment. First, it seems to ignore the nature of the legislation. Today, the House is not debating the principle of whether it is right to create the post of Children's Commissioner for Wales—we have already done that.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that, yesterday in Wales, he took part in the launch of an extremely important document—the social exclusion report of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, which will, I hope, assist children in Wales. Does he want to comment on the fact that no Conservative Member bothered to turn up?

Mr. Murphy: I should get into difficulty if I were to refer to the affairs of the Select Committee. However, the point has obviously been made.
The Assembly has already appointed a commissioner. As the House is aware, today's debate is about an extension of the powers of that commissioner, but all


those powers are being extended within the same principles as were established by the Care Standards Act: the commissioner should deal with public bodies that are accountable to the National Assembly.
Secondly, the amendment stands in direct contradiction of what Conservative Members have said for some time. It was, after all, one of my predecessors as Secretary of State for Wales, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), now Leader of the Opposition, who established the Waterhouse inquiry with the support of both sides of the House. I paid tribute to the right hon. Gentleman when we made a statement on the report. Do he and his party seriously ask us to undermine the first recommendation of that report—the establishment of an independent Children's Commissioner for Wales? Of course, we await the comments of the hon. Member for Ribble Valley on that matter.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: The Secretary of State mentioned the report of Sir Ronald Waterhouse. It was a catalogue of indictments and of the terrible abuses to which young men were subjected. I refer the right hon. Gentleman to paragraph 52.36, which states:
We draw the attention of Parliament also to the abuse suffered by B between the ages of 16 years and 18 years … Much of the later abuse was not inflicted by persons in a position of trust in relation to him and there can be no doubt that he was significantly corrupted and damaged by what occurred.
It is no good the Secretary of State coming to the Dispatch Box to tell us what a wonderful job the Government are doing; they used the Parliament Act to inflict the change in the age of consent—[Interruption]—in direct defiance of the recommendation of Sir Ronald Waterhouse, who believed that it was absolutely necessary to preserve the age of consent to protect children. The Government are thus being two-faced on this matter.

Mr. Murphy: I do not think that the people who spent many months—indeed, years—setting up the office of the Children's Commissioner would agree with the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. David Melding, the Conservative Health spokesman in the Assembly, said:
A fully effective Children's Commissioner will offer great support to parents without undermining the responsibility of the family in any way. The example of parents of children with special needs illustrates this. They will find a great friend and champion in the Children's Commissioner, and good wholesome family life will be enhanced as a result.
That seems to stand in complete contradiction of the reasoned amendment, which suggests that family life will be adversely affected by the establishment of the Children's Commissioner.
So, why has there been that sudden change of mind? Why have Conservative Members waited for five weeks since the Gracious Speech to announce their opposition to the measure? I suppose that desperate men resort to desperate measures. I take the point, but the reasoned amendment cannot be seen as anything other than immature, irresponsible and erratic.
That is certainly the view of the Leader of the Conservatives in the Welsh Assembly, who today told the media in Wales:

I was certainly not aware of any difference. Subsequently I found out there was a difference of emphasis but we are not going to change our position. We are not going to stand on our heads for anybody.
In the Welsh Grand Committee, the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) said:
I re-emphasise that there is no conflict between my view and that of colleagues in the Welsh Assembly—[Official Report, Welsh Grand Committee, 11 December 2000; c. 26.]
He could have fooled us.

Mr. Simon Thomas: The Secretary of State's revelations are amazing. Does he agree that all that raises the question of who will lead the Conservative party in Wales? Will a Conservative Member for an English constituency decide the policy of the Conservative party in Wales? Does that not show the Conservatives' death wish for any hopes that they may have of winning at least one seat in Wales?

Mr. Murphy: I share the hon. Gentleman's ambition in that respect. We need to be told precisely where the Conservative party stands in relation to the Children's Commissioner and the Bill—and especially where its members stand in relation to each other. The Conservative party says one thing in the Assembly and another in the House of Commons, which causes nothing but confusion in people's minds about whether there is consensus about the Bill and the establishment of the Children's Commissioner.

Mr. Evans: Never have I heard the Secretary of State spin so much; it is a shame that he has turned this Bill into a political football. I remind him that David Melding proposed the following amendment in the National Assembly for Wales:
asserts the importance of the family in protecting and nurturing children and therefore believes that the remit of the Children's Commissioner should relate exclusively to children's services provided by public and other agencies.

Mr. Murphy: I understand all that, but the hon. Gentleman must realise that it is not I who has turned the Bill into a party political issue. There is a reasoned amendment before the House, and it is as mystifying and bewildering to the people of Wales as it is to Members of this House, because for months there has been unanimity about the Children's Commissioner, both in the House of Commons and in the Assembly. The hon. Gentleman will have to explain his position later. Indeed, he will have to explain how Conservative Members intend to vote.
The reasoned amendment fails to recognise the huge consultation process that has taken place in Wales over the establishment of the Children's Commissioner. The Assembly's Health and Social Services Committee took on the task of consultation, and the written consultation was followed up by sessions to hear all evidence.
During that consultation, in February last year, the Waterhouse report on child abuse in north Wales was published. As is now well known, the first two


recommendations were about the creation of a Children's Commissioner for Wales. The report recommended that the commissioner's duties should include

(a) ensuring that children's rights are respected through the monitoring and oversight of the operation of complaints and whistleblowing procedures and the arrangements for children's advocacy;
(b) examining the handling of individual cases brought to the Commissioner's attention (including making recommendations on the merits) when he considers it necessary and appropriate to do so;
(c) publishing reports, including an annual it report to the National Assembly for Wales.

At that time, as the House will know, the Care Standards Bill was under consideration. The Government moved quickly to amend that Bill to reflect both Sir Ronald Waterhouse's recommendations about the establishment of the commissioner and the Assembly's policy of establishing a commissioner as soon as possible.
The amendments that were tabled extended the commissioner's functions to give him or her a remit as wide as the scope of the Bill allowed—all social care services for children to be regulated under the Act in Wales. Those included children's homes, residential family centres, local authority fostering and adoption services, fostering agencies, voluntary adoption agencies, domiciliary care, private and voluntary hospitals and clinics, the welfare aspects of day care and childminding services for all children under eight, and the welfare of children living away from home in boarding schools.
The commissioner's functions in respect of those services are contained in part IV of the Care Standards Act 2000. They include the review and monitoring of arrangements by the service providers to deal with complaints, whistleblowing and advocacy; the provision of advice and information; the examination, where the commissioner considers appropriate, of the cases of particular children who are receiving or have been in receipt of such services; the provision of assistance, including financial assistance and representation in relation to proceedings or disputes, or to the operation of procedures and arrangements monitored by the commissioner; and making reports, including an annual report to the National Assembly. All those functions and responsibilities, which have been set out in detail in the Care Standards Act, now lie with the Children's Commissioner in Cardiff.

Mr. Evans: The Secretary of State referred to part IV of the Care Standards Act 2000. Did he mean part V?

Mr. Murphy: The hon. Gentleman is right; I meant part V, and I apologise to the House.
As I told the House last March, the Government recognised that further legislation was needed to achieve the Assembly's aspiration to establish a Children's Commissioner for Wales with a wide-ranging scope. I made clear the Government's commitment to consider the Assembly's proposals urgently and sympathetically. The Bill represents the Government's response to the Assembly's vision of a Children's Commissioner. It is a vision of a champion of children in Wales who will promote their rights, raise the profile of children's issues and take an overview of the impact of policies and procedures across the services that affect them.
I shall now outline the effects of those measures. The Bill is cast in the form of amendments to the existing provisions relating to the Children's Commissioner in the

Care Standards Act. That approach has enabled simplicity and concision in the Bill's drafting, given that so much material is already in the 2000 Act. The Bill will set out a ringing declaration of the commissioner's principal aim—to exercise all his functions with the aim of safeguarding and promoting the rights and welfare of children in Wales. There could be no clearer declaration of intent than that the commissioner is intended to be a champion of children's rights with a wide-ranging remit.
The Bill will introduce a power for the commissioner to review the effect on children in Wales of the exercise, or the proposed exercise, of any function by the Assembly and the other public bodies that it sponsors, such as local authorities and health authorities.

Mr. Hilton Dawson: I absolutely welcome the Bill and dismiss the nonsense that we have heard from the Opposition, but is not there a possible flaw in the Bill, given that it relates only to services provided by the Welsh Assembly? Is not there a clear problem in that the commissioner, as envisaged in the Bill, will have no role in relation to extremely vulnerable young people, such as those who are dealt with under youth justice legislation?

Mr. Murphy: I understand the points that my hon. Friend makes, and I intend to touch on them in a few moments.
The powers include the making or the proposed making of subordinate legislation by the Assembly, which has shown its commitment to the commissioner by opening up its own activities to his scrutiny. The other public bodies involved will be not only those obviously connected with children, but a very wide range of organisations whose actions may impact on them, such as the Welsh Development Agency, Sports Council for Wales and National Museums and Galleries of Wales.
The Bill will extend the commissioner's powers under the Care Standards Act 2000 to examine the cases of particular children and to assist in particular cases. The precise application of that power will depend on regulations to be made by the Assembly, but they could apply to the wide range of bodies to which I have referred, including the Assembly itself.
The commissioner's power to consider complaints, whistleblowing and advocacy arrangements will also be extended under the Bill. That power will be applied to a far wider range of bodies in Wales that provide direct services to children, including local authorities, the NHS, GPs, schools and other education establishments and training organisations. The Assembly will again be one of the bodies subject to that function because, although it does not generally provide services directly to children, it delegates to, or contracts with, other bodies to do so.
The Bill makes provision for the commissioner to require prescribed bodies to provide information to him if they are involved in the investigation of individual cases, or if their arrangements for complaints, whistleblowing and advocacy are being monitored. The bodies involved are potentially all those mentioned in the Bill. Failure to comply would lead to legal sanctions. That is evidence of the Assembly's commitment to creating a commissioner with real teeth, who will have to be taken into account.
The essence of the Bill is therefore its extension of the commissioner's functions to a far greater range of bodies and the new power that it introduces to review the effects on children in Wales of the exercise of functions by a very wide range of bodies.
The vast range of services that impact on children and young people have been devolved and will be within the commissioner's formal responsibility. However, I turn now to the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) made a few moments ago in respect of non-devolved bodies.
We must remind ourselves that less than a year ago there was no such person as a Children's Commissioner doing anything in Wales or any other part of the United Kingdom, and that it was only a matter of months ago that the commissioner dealt only with children in care. Now the House is being asked to consider extending the commissioner's powers to every aspect of the functions, responsibilities, duties and powers of the Assembly and every institution in Wales that has responsibility to the Assembly. Nearly all those bodies are devolved. We have gone a long way towards providing for those matters to be dealt with by the commissioner. As I said, a vast range of services are devolved. The appointment of the commissioner himself was the Assembly's responsibility, and the post is very much associated with the Assembly.
Just because a matter is not within the commissioner's statutory remit does not mean that he will be debarred from making any comment whatsoever. He will have power to exercise functions that are incidental to his core functions. For example, in the course of his work the commissioner may receive representations from or on behalf of children about non-devolved matters that he may wish to bring to the attention of relevant Government Departments, and no one, but no one, will stop him indicating his views to those Departments in the process. That power would not give the commissioner substantive functions in non-devolved areas, nor would he have any formal power to require information to be provided in relation to such matters. However, it seems highly likely that Government Departments would react positively, given the profile of the office of the Children's Commissioner for Wales.
The commissioner may also formally bring to the Assembly's attention complaints and information that he receives about non-devolved matters; for example, through his annual report to the Assembly on his activities. The framework for that can be established through Assembly regulations. As a result, the Assembly itself may wish to consider and make representations on such matters to the Government of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Robert Walter: Is the Secretary of State unaware that in a communication to all Members about today's debate, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children says:
The Bill falls short of the aspirations of the Assembly's vision of the Children's Commissioner as an independent champion …?
The first item in the NSPCC's submission is that the Bill fails to
give the Commissioner a right to comment on non-devolved matters and cross-border services.

I remind the Secretary of State that the final part of our reasoned amendment says that the Bill
fails to take account of the responsibility of UK public bodies and agencies which are not subject to oversight by the National Assembly for Wales.
Does not the right hon. Gentleman believe that that shortcoming Bill should be dealt with in Committee?

Mr. Murphy: It is a pity that the Opposition did not deal with the matter by amendments in Committee, rather than tabling the reasoned amendment and totally confusing the people of Wales. The hon. Gentleman has a point about the NSPCC. We have all received letters from that important body. However, its submission says also:
The NSPCC welcomes the Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill. It is a welcome attempt to improve the wellbeing of Wales' children.

Children in Wales also wrote to us all, saying:
The appointment of a Children's Commissioner in Wales and the broadening of his powers in the Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill is unanimously welcomed by children's organisations working in Wales.
Of course, there will be differences of view and different aspirations. All those matters involve different aspects that, of course, can be debated on Report and in Committee. Not for one second does that mean, however, that people do not welcome the Bill, which proposes a huge extension in the powers of the children's commissioner.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: Does the Secretary of State believe that a single one of those organisations in Wales is inclined to recommend that the House support the reasoned amendment tabled by Conservative Members?

Mr. Evans: Go and join them then.

Mr. Murphy: The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) makes a fair point, and we shall listen with great interest to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley later.
Until now, discussion has focused on the role of the commissioner in respect of child protection and, particularly, children looked after by local authorities. Those vital issues concern some of our most vulnerable children. However, it has never been the intention that the commissioner should take the place of existing statutory child protection bodies, or usurp the planned regulatory role of the care standards inspectorate for Wales. It is not intended that the commissioner should seek to take the place of existing complaints systems or routinely investigate cases directly. Indeed, the Assembly's report indicated that it expected the commissioner to undertake formal investigations only if a matter of principle was at stake; it is not envisaged that such investigations will be a routine part of his work. However, the Commissioner will play an important strategic role in ensuring the effectiveness of child protection systems in Wales.

Mr. Vernon Coaker: My right hon. Friend is making a powerful case for the Children's


Commissioner for Wales. Given that case, will he talk to his colleagues in the Cabinet about the need for a children's commissioner in England?

Mr. Murphy: Inevitably, those points will be made regularly during the passage of the Bill, as they were during the passage of the Care Standards Act. However, it is important that we understand that the creation of the post of Children's Commissioner for Wales sprang from a Welsh source. During the Assembly elections, our party—and, indeed, other parties—made it a manifesto commitment, and it is very much a Welsh-inspired post.
That does not mean that, in the coming months, my colleagues in Government will not look seriously and intensively at the way in which the role of the Children's Commissioner for Wales will work. It is obviously for my colleagues then to consider how best to deal with the matter. The post is, as I say, very much a Wales-inspired appointment, which is why, when the people of Wales went to the Assembly elections, they voted for parties that said that they wanted to introduce such a Bill after those elections.

Mr. Alan Williams: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the proposal—which, as he rightly said, was introduced under the Welsh Office of a previous Government, and was considered in great depth in Wales—may be looked at in relation to the regions of England, but not necessarily in relation to the whole of England? It would be sensible if the lessons that are learned and the models that are developed through the pattern of devolution in England were allowed to inform the debate that should rightly take place in different parts of England.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House is in danger of being led astray.

Mr. Murphy: Far be it from me to continue that trend, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I simply wish to say that there are examples where England can learn from Wales, and vice versa. The existence of joint ministerial committees that deal with all the devolved administrations of Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and, indeed, of the United Kingdom Government, indicate that we take seriously the relationship and partnership with the new Administrations—the Scottish Parliament and the Assemblies—that have been set up in the United Kingdom.
It is also important to emphasise to my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) another major reason why the post of Children's Commissioner was set up: it was established in direct response to the first recommendation of the Waterhouse report, which was a specifically Welsh investigation into appalling child abuse.
The commissioner will have to co-operate with a wide range of different bodies, but the Bill will go much further, by establishing a commissioner whose role could extend to all children in Wales and to all the policies and services for which the Assembly has a devolved responsibility. The Assembly has made it clear that that is where it expects the commissioner to carry out much of his valuable work. He will be able to review the impact on children and young people of the policies and procedures of a wide range of public bodies in education

and training, health care, transport, town and country planning, sport and recreation, economic development and many other areas.
That power will enable the commissioner to raise the profile of children's issues and of children and to take an overview of how the actions of public bodies directly or indirectly affect them as they go about their daily lives. That role will distinguish the commissioner from any other public office holder in the United Kingdom.
In line with the devolution settlement, the Bill, like the Care Standards Act, leaves as much as possible to the Assembly to determine in regulations. A key area for regulation is the involvement of children and young people. The commissioner is part of the Assembly's strategy for listening to children and ensuring that their voices are heard, and the report of the Health and Social Services Committee made clear the importance of children and young people informing the commissioner's agenda and being regularly consulted. Indeed, the Assembly has already been innovative in the sphere of public appointments by involving children and young people as an integral part in the selection of the first commissioner. The involvement of young people in the commissioner's work will be for the Assembly to determine in regulations made under the Bill.
As I said, the Assembly has identified Mr. Peter Clarke, currently director of Childline, as the first Children's Commissioner. He is likely to take up the post in the spring and will plan to be fully operational as soon as possible. That process will inevitably take time; there is much work to do. Mr. Clarke needs to find a permanent location or locations, recruit his team and, crucially, establish and implement the mechanisms for keeping in touch with the children and young people of Wales.
The Assembly also faces a considerable task in defining and consulting on the significant issues that have been left for it to determine in secondary legislation. All that means that the Children's Commissioner is likely to be fully functional in the summer or early autumn. Just over a year after the Assembly produced its ground-breaking proposal, that is exceptionally rapid progress.
When the Children's Commissioner takes up his post, he will find that the Bill empowers him to take a pioneering role in promoting the rights and welfare of the children of Wales. He will have in his scope a vast range of activities and at his command real powers to require access to information. That adds up to a commissioner with the opportunity to make a real difference to the lives of all Welsh children.
Wales is leading the way for the United Kingdom in developing the office of Children's Commissioner. I am sure that other parts of the United Kingdom will watch his progress with great interest. I believe that today is a historic day for children's rights, the National Assembly for Wales and the constitution of the United Kingdom. I therefore commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Nigel Evans: I beg to move, To leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill because it fails to assert the importance of the family in protecting and nurturing children; it fails to give families confidence that the Children's Commissioner will


protect the interests of their children whilst not impinging on the rights and responsibilities of parents in their relations with the public and other bodies within the scope of the Bill; because it will lead to duplication and confusion as to where responsibility for the welfare of children in schools lies; and fails to take account of the responsibility of UK public bodies and agencies which are not subject to oversight by the National Assembly for Wales.
I am delighted to take part in the debate and welcome the Bill, but it is a great shame that the Secretary of State made his remarks in a manner that we usually associate with Millbank and the high professionals of the spin doctors. He did not need to do so, as he will be able to detect from what I say and from our approach in Committee, which will be extremely constructive to ensure that we have a Children's Commissioner worthy of all the children of Wales.
A number of comments have already been made. The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), who was in the Chamber, is to introduce a ten-minute Bill dealing with a children's rights commissioner, and I welcome the remarks made by the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) in an Adjournment debate on the Children's Commissioner. As the Secretary of State knows, the reasoned amendment is a device that an Opposition use. When he was in opposition and sitting on this side of the House, which he will be doing again shortly, he used that same device. The difference now is that he is sitting on that side of the House and saying, "We are the masters now." That is the only major difference with regard to the device of a reasoned amendment.

Mr. Paul Murphy: We await the hon. Gentleman's comments with interest. There is a big difference, and we referred to it in the previous short debate. Since 1997, there has been a devolution settlement, and the Assembly, in conjunction with Parliament and the Government, has sponsored primary legislation. His reasoned amendment could, technically, scupper the Bill and cause difficulties for our colleagues in Cardiff, the people of Wales and those who want a Children's Commissioner.

Mr. Evans: I do not accept that. We have tabled an amendment on Second Reading and we will table amendments in Committee. The suggestion that amendments cannot be tabled to improve legislation—which is what we want to do—is an insult to the charities in Wales that have briefed us on the improvements that they want to be made to the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has said that we will examine non-devolved powers in Committee to ensure that the Children's Commissioner has the proper powers. A number of Labour Members will table amendments in Committee to try to strengthen the Bill, and I look forward to that debate. We do not want anything to delay the passage of the Bill and its becoming an Act. We want to ensure that the children of Wales are properly protected as quickly as possible.
We are all aware that a general election may be only a few weeks away.

Mr. Win Griffiths: rose—

Mr. Öpik: rose—

Mr. Evans: If the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) were to sit on the Government Benches where he belongs under the Lib-Lab pact, I might recognise him.
We want to ensure that a general election will not hamper the Bill, and that it is on the statute book as quickly as possible.

Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman has made a remarkable statement Does he want us to vote against his reasoned amendment if he puts it to a vote?

Mr. Evans: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will vote exactly as the Government Whips dictate, and that the Bill will go into Committee quickly. Am Ito believe that the hon. Gentleman does not think that improvements can be made to the Bill following the recommendations of the charities that have probably written to him to raise the same issues as they have raised with me? In Committee, we will try to improve the Bill to ensure that the children of Wales get the proper care and welfare that they deserve.

Mr. Michael: Does not the hon. Gentleman understand that, given the wording of his reasoned amendment, if he and his colleagues voted for it and they were in the majority, the Bill would die? That is what he has drafted and put to the House.

Mr. Evans: The funny thing is that the former Secretary of State for Wales should know from his time in opposition that devices are used to put down markers to show that the Opposition want the legislation to be improved in Committee. Given the Government's majority and the compliant people on the Labour Benches who are prepared to do the bidding of their masters at Millbank, I would be amazed if the amendment had any chance of succeeding.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Evans: We should move on; I want to make some progress.
The backdrop to the Bill is well known. Successive Governments have introduced legislation to protect the welfare of children. When we were in power, we introduced the Children Act 1989. In 1989, the United Nations convention on the rights of the child came into being. It was ratified by a Conservative Government in 1991 and came into force in 1992. The convention holds that children are born with fundamental freedoms and the inherent rights of all human beings.
What we are doing is important not just for the children of Wales, but for the 2 billion children throughout the world. A number of Governments and countries will be watching what we are doing in this country. We have done that ourselves by seeing how an ombudsman or a commissioner operates in other countries. Emerging democracies will look at what we are doing and recognise that it is a mark of a civilised society to have sufficient and proper legislation to protect youngsters who do not have a voice in those systems of democracy. They will see what we do to ensure that the convention's provisions are implemented. It provides for a child's right to survival, health and education, a caring family environment, play and culture, protection from exploitation and abuse and to have his or her voice heard and his or her opinions taken into account on significant issues.
What we do today is important for children around the world. We are not the first Government to introduce children's welfare measures and we must work hard to ensure that we are not the last. Other countries, such as Australia, Germany, Canada, Norway, Sweden and New Zealand, have a Children's Commissioner, or a version of as post. This country acted last year by introducing the Care Standards Act 2000. The establishment of the Children's Commissioner for Wales and the children's rights director for England will build on that.
Those provisions followed campaigns by children's organisations and charities, and I pay tribute to their work in pushing the agenda forward. They include Save the Children—Achub y Plant, in Welsh—the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Cymru, Barnados Cymru, the Children's Society in Wales and representatives of professional bodies, such as the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, the Welsh branch of the Local Government Association and even the Welsh Affairs Committee.
William Utting, in his 1997 report "Taking Children Seriously", stated:
We lack an independent office mandated to protect the interests of children in general on all matters of public policy and administration that affect their lives. Children need a strong independent national office to represent their interests comprehensively.
Indeed, in July 1998, the Health Committee, to which my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) referred, called for the establishment of the post of Children's Commissioner.
The Waterhouse report was a major catalyst for change. It investigated the abuse of children in care in the former county council areas of Gwynedd and Clwyd since 1974 and was published on 15 February 2000. The inquiry was established by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition when he was Secretary of State for Wales. I know that the House was grateful for his decision to do so, and I welcome the Secretary of State's earlier comments and what he said when the report was published.
The report was harrowing. Some 264 witnesses gave oral evidence and 311 written evidences were received. In his conclusion, Sir Ronald recommended the establishment of an independent Children's Commissioner for Wales, with specific powers on children's rights, the monitoring and oversight of the operation of complaints, whistleblowing and arrangements for children's Advocacy. He also recommended that an annual report should be made to the National Assembly for Wales. I was delighted when the Secretary of State announced on 2 March—the day after St. David's day—that there would be an independent Children's Commissioner for Wales.
Provisions were made in the Care Standards Act. However, the powers were limited and I accept that the changes that we now want were not within the Bill's scope. The Under-Secretary of State promised that the Government would produce more comprehensive proposals, and we will be debating the general thrust of those.
The Bill has a most appalling backdrop. There was the recent murder of Damilola Taylor. A headline in The Independent on Monday 8 January this year was most harrowing. It read: "Serial abuse inquiries 'will top 100'". Nearly 100 inquiries into child abuse are taking place in England and Wales—and that is happening in 2001.
There was also the tragic death of Anna Climbie, who was murdered by her aunt and her aunt's boy friend. Following that, the Secretary of State said:
This little girl was murdered by people who were supposed to be caring for her, but she was let down by the system that was supposed to be protecting her.
He was absolutely right, as I am sure the House agrees. I welcome the speed with which the inquiry into that numbing murder is taking place. We have heard many reports about overworked social workers, her case being closed prematurely and agencies failing to detect abuse, but they must all be thoroughly and quickly investigated. We owe that to the memory of Anna.
It is an appalling prospect that any other child could go through what Anna Climbie went through. The fact that an eight-year-old child could be systematically abused and neglected and left lying in a freezing bath to die of hypothermia defies our comprehension. It is little wonder that children's charities have now called for a comprehensive review of child protection procedures throughout the whole United Kingdom. The NSPCC has called for an independent child commissioner to act as a children's watchdog. If ever there was a time to act swiftly, that time is now.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition pointed out to the Prime Minister on 16 February 2000 that a children's rights director—as the post is now called in England—is not the same as the Children's Commissioner. The shadow Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), said during the passage of the Care Standards Bill:
The Government are committed to providing a children's rights director only for looked-after children. We believe that the provision should go further. Almost all children's charities and professionals support the idea of a children's commissioner. The model that I suggest would allow protection and advocacy without interfering in the rights of parents.—[Official Report, 18 May 2000; Vol. 350, c. 496.]
During the Committee stage of that Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) said:
we have also tabled an amendment that would delete the role of children's rights director and establish separate English and Welsh children's commissioners on an equivalent basis.—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 4 July 2000; c. 663.]
Here is the challenge for the Government: let us not delay a day longer. As I shall argue shortly and as the National Assembly for Wales and many children's charities in Wales have argued, the Bill does not go far enough in its provisions for the functions and powers of the Children's Commissioner. Just as events made the Care Standards Bill deficient, so the events of recent months make this Bill deficient in several key regards.
While we have a Children Commissioner for Wales with one set of powers and a children's rights director with lesser powers who will be working fully in 15 months—there seems to have been a delay—there will be confusion and inequality of treatment, and concern for our children will arise. Children are children whether they live in England or Wales, and devolution should not be a barrier to giving all our children full protection and rights. It should be seen as an opportunity and there can be no mealy-mouthed excuses for not acting quickly.
I know that several Labour Members feel exactly the same as I do. We want parity and a children's commissioner with equivalent powers to be established in


England as quickly as possible. Those Labour Members may feel awkward about the present position because children from Wales will, for all sorts of reasons, he stationed or placed in England for a period of time. Does that mean that they do not deserve the same protection as they would receive in Wales? Children from England who come to Wales will receive extra protection from an enhanced version of the Children's Commissioner.
There is no excuse for such differences to exist. I know that the Secretary of State said that the proposal is the result of the special needs that exist in Wales. However, of the 100 investigations into child abuse that are taking place in England and Wales, the vast majority—as one would expect—are being conducted in England. That is where the vast majority of children live. We must consider the issue with all seriousness, because there is no justification for not establishing a children's commissioner for England with equivalent powers to the Children's Commissioner for Wales so that all our children are properly protected.
The Government may claim that they do not have the parliamentary time in the next few weeks to do something about this issue, but now is the time to act. Tomorrow, we shall debate a Bill that many people believe will protect foxes. I know that emotions run high on both sides of that debate, but it will seem strange to the nation considering our proceedings that we have time to protect foxes, but not the time to protect children in England. I ask the Government to reconsider and to find time to establish a children's commissioner for England so that children in England and Wales are properly looked after.
In response to the Select Committee on Health in December 1998, the Government stated that they were not minded to create a children's commissioner post in England "in present circumstances". That was in 1998, and I suggest that circumstances have now changed. The Government ought to reconsider the matter.
Non-devolved issues include penal services and youth custody, which the Secretary of State has mentioned. These matters are not covered by the Welsh Assembly, but if an over-arching Children's Commissioner is to be able to deal with all aspects of care for our children, is it not absurd to use the reason that home affairs are not devolved as a bureaucratic barrier to prevent the commissioner from having responsibility for them? That is ridiculous. We must consider carefully in Committee whether the Children's Commissioner would feel uncomfortable—or, indeed, be debarred from—dealing with penal and home affairs matters.
A number of other matters, such as the Inland Revenue and social security, would also fall into the category of non-devolved matters. Children's charities have asked that they should all be examined, and the Government must come up with good reasons for the commissioner being debarred from entering any bodies that hold sway over our children.
The Bill contains an ability for the commissioner to be consulted and to monitor policy as it affects children, but that ability is contained within the straitjacket of the Welsh Assembly. All primary legislation that affects Wales is made here at Westminster. Surely the Children's Commissioner should have some input into primary legislation that will affect the children of Wales—either

into Green Papers, White Papers or the Bills themselves. Why should we handcuff or straitjacket the Children's Commissioner into dealing only with secondary legislation affecting Wales? Let us reconsider the Commissioner's powers in relation to primary legislation. If the Government are proposing that the commissioner will be denied a consultative role in any legislation that could impinge on children, simply because it does not originate in the Welsh Assembly, we shall press that issue in Committee.
Concerns have been expressed by children's charities in relation to the requirement to publish an annual report. We accept that, if the commissioner's powers are extended outside the Welsh Assembly, an annual report might also have to come to this Parliament. There would be nothing wrong with that. I am sure that when the Children's Commissioner publishes his report to the National Assembly for Wales, we shall all eagerly obtain copies and read it avidly. We shall want to ensure that the powers of the commissioner will be appropriate to what he wants to do, when he and his office are up and running.
Other concerns are that the commissioner should be able to enter any institutions that contain children, examine the failure of any bodies to exercise their functions and comment on the decisions of courts and tribunals. All those points have been raised by children's charities, and I hope that we can use the Standing Committee to good effect in answering them. Obviously, one would not expect the commissioner to participate in or comment on a court case while it was still going on. However, after the judgment had been made, there should be an appropriate m3chanism whereby the commissioner could comment on cases in which children were involved.
The House welcomes the appointment of Peter Clarke as the new Children's Commissioner for Wales. He will have a lot of work on his plate, unfortunately, and we wish him well. He has a very good pedigree in Childline Cymru. I ask him and the House to consider one aspect of the provision. He is to be called the Children's Commissioner, but the last thing that many youngsters between the ages of 14 and 17 want to be called is children. They would be insulted if one thought of them in those terms, for all kinds of reasons. If we were to call him the children's and youth commissioner, teenagers might feel more included in his work, which would be useful.
I hope that the commissioner will consult us about his powers, and if he feels that we need to reconsider any of them, we should be able to do so. He must be able to act clearly and decisively to protect the rights and welfare of our children. Parents and society must be able to see him performing his tasks without muddied lines. There must be no demarcation problems in relation to the commissioner's role in schools or in institutions that provide services to schools. That must be properly defined, so that people know where responsibility lies.
We want to ensure that the commissioner's role is widely publicised. Wherever young people go, they must know that they have a champion who will fight for their welfare and rights That publicity must be aimed at children in the first place but also, because of their role as whistleblowers, at adults. We must ensure that information about the relevant contact numbers and the commissioner's powers are widely available. In that way,


we will have the security of knowing that the commissioner will be the champion even of children who know nothing about him.
The best security for children is a secure, stable and loving family, supported fully by the Government and unhindered by political correctness or misguided priorities. Our youngsters should have a good education, without the fear of bullying. Sadly, today's edition of The Guardian carries another survey showing that a great many children suffer bullying in school. Children need protection from that.
Another aspect of good education is that children must not fear that village schools will be closed. Hon. Members of all parties want schools in and near villages to be protected. Children must also know that teacher numbers are sufficient, and that they will not be deprived of schooling. That happens all too often these days. What children need is a good education, a good education, a good education.
We want the Bill to be comprehensive and to afford proper protection to all our children. We want it on the statute book as quickly as possible. I guarantee that Conservative Members will work with diligence to ensure that there is no delay, and I have already spoken to the Government Whip to that end. There must be no excuses.
We want to strengthen the Bill where necessary, although that does not mean that we will not table amendments. Where appropriate, we want the powers of the commissioner to be extended. However, we must act without delay—our children deserve no less.

Mr. Win Griffiths: Government Front-Bench colleagues deserve praise for introducing this Bill so quickly, as does the National Assembly for Wales, which co-operated so well with other arms of Government in the United Kingdom to make the Bill a reality. In addition, as the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) noted at least tangentially, the Children in Wales Commissioner Campaign Group has provided some thoughtful briefings about how the Bill could be improved.
I remain at a loss to understand why the Opposition have tabled an amendment that would decline to give the Bill a Second Reading. It does not have the slightest chance of succeeding, but if it were to be passed it would prevent all the good things that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley wants to happen from occurring. However, given the source of the amendment, we should not be surprised at that contradiction.
To be fair, the hon. Member for Ribble Valley put the debate in the context of the recent and terrible inquiry into the death of Anna Climbie. We must recognise that the phenomenon is not new: perhaps the first really major outcry about the abominable treatment and death of a child arose in connection with Marta Colwell in 1973. Similar incidents have occurred consistently over the years, and in that context we could mention Tyra Henry, Jasmine Beckford, Kimberly Carlile and Doreen Mason. Unfortunately, many children have met deaths after suffering and torment so terrible that it is beyond ordinary human beings to understand it.
We have heard mention of the fact that about 100 investigations into child abuse are taking place in the United Kingdom now. We need only look at statistical

information available in Wales on the number of children on the child protection register to see that child abuse is increasing. Between 1990 and 2000, the figure increased by 5 per cent., from 2,302 to 2,416. Within the figure for 2000 there was a 50 per cent. increase in neglect and emotional abuse; and of the almost 2,500 children who were on the register, more than a third were there as a result of physical abuse.
It is interesting, too, to look at the figures to see how the range can change. In the Vale of Glamorgan, in 1997, only—I say "only" to emphasise the change—37 children in 10,000 were named on the register, but by 2000 that figure had increased to 61. In Wrexham, the low figure of 11 on the register in 1997 had increased to 22 in 2000. The figure for Wales increased from 30 under-18s in every 10,000 in 1997 to 40 in 2000.
However, in Caerphilly the figure has gone up and down. From 39 in every 10,000 in 1997, it jumped to 64 in every 10,000 in 1998 and 62 in 1999, and then went back down to 35 in 2000. We might want to explore and consider the reasons for those fluctuations.
Between 1992 and 1998 in Wales, figures were kept by age groups—under fives, one to four, five to nine, 10 to 15 and 16 to 17. In every age group except for the last, the amount of abuse increased during that period.
We must be keenly aware of the fact that we are considering the Bill at a time when problems of abuse have got worse, despite the fact that there have been all these inquiries, and that we now have a well-established system of child abuse conferences, registers and procedures. We have the Children Act 1989, which gave child protection agencies extra powers, and the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, which came into force in 1992, although with some reservations. We have a battery of laws. We are awash with recommendations from numerous inquiries—more than 20 in the past few years. Reams of guidance have been issued, and yet we must face the fact that terrible abuse still goes on.
We should focus not so much on that abuse, but on what it is about our society that causes such things to happen. There is something about children with which, in our adult world, we have not yet come to terms. That is why it is vital to have a commissioner. We need someone who can step back and take a view that is independent from those of the agencies that are charged with ensuring that children are brought up in a healthy environment. There are so many of them—the social services, the police, the hospitals and the national health service—and yet, for some reason, the system is failing, so it is very important indeed to have the Children's Commissioner.
Of course it is not a new or unique idea to appoint such a commissioner. About a dozen countries have had commissioners—some for quite a few years—and they have operated successfully. We should take heart from examples in countries such as Norway, Denmark and New Zealand, to name but a few.
In the United Kingdom, I suppose that it was the 1991 report, which was sponsored by the Gulbenkian Foundation and written by Peter Newell—at least, he was in charge of the process—entitled "Taking Children Seriously" that proposed a children's rights commissioner. The latest edition, which was published last year, has the support of more than 100 organisations that either represent or have


dealings with children. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley quoted Sir William Utting's foreword, which noted the important of such an independent commissioner.
In 1998, the Select Committee on Health made some important recommendations about having a children's commissioner who would have responsibilities in England. By that time, it was already known in Wales that we wanted to spearhead the appointment of such a person. When Sir Ronald Waterhouse's report came out last February, he made it clear in his first two recommendations that we should have such a commissioner in Wales. In the meantime, the Welsh Office had published its own White Paper, entitled "Building for the Future", which was about the provision of social services. In that document there was a commitment to consider the introduction of the Children's Commissioner.
We have a well-trodden background to the Bill. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, it will not be creating a Children's Commissioner—we have one already. It is seeking to build on powers in the context of the Bill that we considered last year. The Bill before us is seeking to extend positively the commissioner's powers to enable Mr. Peter Clarke to create an office—we congratulate him and wish him well—to ensure that in Wales we shall have a system and a person to give children confidence that they will be able to make their representations if all else has failed. They will know that if they make representations, there will be recorded comment for the Government to take up, whether it be at Assembly level or United Kingdom level. Children can be confident that they will be taken seriously.
The Assembly and the Minister for Health and Social Services, Jane Hutt, made it plain in July the year before last and in May last year that the Assembly was giving importance and priority to the extension of the commissioner's powers to enable him or her to play a more positive role in Welsh life for Welsh children. The Health and Social Services Committee of the Assembly, chaired by Kirsty Williams, conducted a thorough investigation and compiled a report that contained a series of recommendations. Not all of them are featured in the Bill because there still remain difficulties in some instances about the way in which the role of the commissioner can be approached in statutory terms. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that the commissioner will still be able to pursue quite a broad remit and to make recommendations not only at Assembly level but to the United Kingdom Government and Departments for them to consider where they have responsibilities in Wales.
We have a Bill that extends the commissioner's role. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already gone into some detail about that and I do not feel that I need to go over all of the issues. However, it is worth considering some of the concerns of the voluntary sector in Wales, some of which have also been voiced by the Assembly, about how the commission might operate under the powers set out in the Bill. It is right that we should raise issues about non-devolved matters and cross-border services. It was good to hear my right hon. Friend saying that the commissioner would be able to make comments and recommendations on such issues.
It is interesting to know that there are about 220 Welsh teenagers under the care of the youth justice system or in young offenders' institutions in England. There is about the same number in custody in my constituency at Parc prison. Often these children will come out of care and be a part of the commissioner's direct remit. The fact that they are moved into custody should not preclude the commissioner from being able to make recommendations and give consideration to how those young people found themselves in custody. What were the failings of the system, which is now delivered through the Assembly, in the first place?
We must recognise that the statutory duty will still lie with the Home Office, for example, but it is good to be able to raise the issue in this debate, so we can place on record exactly how the commissioner will be able to operate.

Mr. Walter: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue of young people in custody. I wonder whether he has any more idea than I have about the position of those in custody in his constituency. As I understand it from the Secretary of State, the commissioner would be able to express an opinion about them, despite having no statutory power. The commissioner would not have that power in respect of the hon. Gentleman's constituents who might be in custody in England. Would that be the hon. Gentleman's understanding?

Mr. Griffiths: I do not think it appropriate to go into that sort of detail on Second Reading. It is fair to raise it as an issue to be considered. We can probe in Committee to ascertain exactly how the system will work.

Mr. Michael: Is it not precisely the nature of the devolution settlement that there are some responsibilities and some locations which are relevant to Wales but outside the Welsh border, and others that are entirely within Wales? Devolution entails a partnership between the United Kingdom Government and other bodies. Given what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said earlier, the power of the commissioner to make comment where appropriate in the interests of children in Wales will help and strengthen the process of devolution as well as promote the interests of children.

Mr. Griffiths: My right hon. Friend is right. It will be incumbent on whoever are the members of the Committee that will consider the Bill to tease out some of these issues in more detail. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear that there would be a broader horizon for the commissioner to view, even though in some instances there will not be specific statutory duties for him or her. We can be in no doubt that the commissioner will be able to comment on various issues.
There is a slightly trickier area. The Bill allows the commissioner to take up the cases of young children who are the responsibility of bodies or agencies in Wales. The placement of children will be supported through direct or indirect funding, which can be provided through local authorities. However, there could be questions about the placement by Welsh local authorities of children in English foster homes, special schools and specialist hospitals. As such children are ordinarily resident in Wales, payment for their care and treatment will come


from the Welsh purse. It is interesting to reflect on how the commissioner will work in that respect—a matter that should be considered further in Committee.
The issue of dialogue with children also requires further consideration. Should it be dealt with explicitly in the Bill, or can we take it from the tenor of the debate and of the provisions that it will occur automatically? Will the commissioner automatically have regard to dialogue, to promoting and respecting the views of children and to having direct contact with them? As the United Kingdom Government have ratified the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, should the Bill contain specific duties for the commissioner to ensure compliance with the convention by the Welsh Assembly and appropriate bodies and persons in Wales? Should promotion of the convention be a specific part of the commissioner's job, or is there no need for anything else to be done because it has been ratified, is dealt with in other legislation and is automatically a part of the set up?
More serious consideration should be given to issues relating to the commissioner's ability to enter institutions where young people are cared for and to make comments after court cases and tribunals have occurred. I understood from the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that a more liberal approach would indeed apply to those abilities. I further understood that the fears expressed about these issues are not as real as they appear when one first reads the provisions in black and white. Perhaps we can read between the lines and take assurance from his opening remarks on the commissioner's role. Peter Newell is a great expert in these matters and feels that more specific provision should be included in the Bill. I hope that the Standing Committee, on which I hope to serve, will have the opportunity to examine those issues further.
We must avoid the assumption that the creation of a Children's Commissioner is a panacea that will automatically make things better. Although the arrangements have the potential to make things better, the commissioner will still have to work carefully with Welsh bodies, persons and institutions with responsibilities for children. Furthermore, bodies such as social services departments will have to review their recruitment procedures. The training of social workers must be reconsidered, as well as the effectiveness of information gathering and transmission within and between organisations such as the police and the health service. More must also be done in schools.
The Opposition's reasoned amendment—they claimed that they did not want it to be a wrecking amendment—relates to important family issues. For some four years, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and the Welsh Joint Education Committee have been trying to promote in schools what started as education for parenthood, but has now been revamped into family life education. It is important for us to bring to youngsters an awareness of family issues and of the strains and stresses that can arise in families, in order to prepare them for family life and parenthood.
One of the issues raised in Sir William Utting's report was the need for a compulsory register of private foster care—an issue that is relevant to the recent tragic death of Anna Climbie. I do not know whether the recommendation for such a register can be weaved into the Bill. It was not accepted when it was made, but perhaps the time has now come for us to reconsider it.
I hope that we will now act with the alacrity demonstrated by everybody who has so far been involved in the proposals, get the Bill into Committee, examine it thoroughly and use the expertise that has already been gathered. It would be great to see it through the House before the first anniversary of the publication of the Waterhouse report, which did so much to prompt us to take action.

Mr. Richard Livsey: I am happy to speak for the Liberal Democrats on the Bill. We warmly welcome the measure and believe that it cannot come soon enough for the needs of the children of Wales.
There is no doubt that when the elections to the Welsh Assembly were held, a desire stretched almost completely across the political divide to establish a Children's Commissioner for Wales. However, for some reason, the 1999 Welsh Conservative manifesto, "Fair Play for All", made no mention of such a proposal. It might have been suggested that the reasoned amendment was consistent with that approach, but the tone of the speech made by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) was almost exactly the opposite of that of the amendment.

Mr. Llwyd: Today is a ground-breaking day, in terms not only of the Bill but of the Tory Front Bench performance. I hope that when "Erskine May" is updated, it will reflect that the best way of wholeheartedly supporting a Bill is to table a reasoned amendment.

Mr. Livsey: I note the hon. Gentleman's comments; his perception is correct. It was good to hear the remarks of the hon. Member for Ribble Valley in support of the establishment of a Children's Commissioner. Although the Welsh Conservative party's 1999 manifesto did not mention the proposal, it is clear that Conservative Assembly Members' support for the establishment of such a commissioner might have had a subtle influence on his speech.
The other three parties all proposed the establishment of a commissioner for Wales. The Welsh Liberal Democrat manifesto, which promised "guaranteed delivery", proposed the appointment of a commissioner with powers to investigate local handling of any complaint made by a child about a public or voluntary service. That is important because it must be backed up with statutory force. We are fortunate because, as the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) has already stated, Kirsty Williams, who is a member of our party, chairs the Health and Social Services Committee in the Assembly. She and all members of the Committee strongly advocated establishing a Children's Commissioner for Wales.
The Health and Social Services Committee has taken evidence on the creation of the Children's Commissioner from a wide range of organisations, including the NSPCC, Barnardos, the Association of Directors of Social Services and the Welsh Local Government Association. The Committee also noted the opportunity to establish a statutory independent commissioner under the Care Standards Bill, which has subsequently been enacted.
The creation of a Children's Commissioner for Wales is an important matter, especially in view of the Waterhouse report on child abuse in north Wales. Sir Ronald Waterhouse's findings made the creation of an independent


Children's Commissioner for Wales imperative. Surely real power means statutory powers to protect children and their rights. The organisations that the Assembly consulted support that and the extension of the powers that are established in the Care Standards Act 2000.
The question that remains is the extent to which we extend the Children's Commissioner's powers. The Health and Social Services Committee and the Pre-16, Schools and Early Learning Committee in the Assembly concluded in a joint meeting on 22 March 2000 that the Children's Commissioner should promote children's rights, raise the profile of children's issues and take an overview of the impact of policies and procedures across all children's services.
The joint meeting also made the point that a Children's Commissioner should represent the views of children and young people up to the age of 18, with exceptions for older young people. The suggestion of the hon. Member for Ribble Valley that "young people" should be added to the commissioner's title provides food for thought. Young people older than 15 are sensitive about being described as children, yet many young people experience great problems.
One of the joint meeting's most important proposals was effective advocacy systems for children and young people. All the points that I have made so far are covered in the Bill, although not all the Health and Social Services Committee's proposals have been included. However, amendments could be tabled in Committee to ascertain whether we can improve the advocacy systems for which the measure provides.
Formal investigations of circumstances in which children's rights have been breached are especially important. The power to disclose information about various circumstances that affect children is vital. Liberal Democrat Members are pleased that many of the ideas that I have described have been taken on board.
An amendment tabled in the Assembly states:
the Assembly affirms its beliefs that the Children's Commissioner for Wales should have statutory powers across all areas affecting all children in Wales, and that his or her powers should include:

Power to require inquiries
Powers to order disclosure of information
Powers to require action to be taken by public authorities and bodies, in accordance with their own duties.

It is interesting to note that the amendment was passed unanimously by all four parties in the Assembly.
The official Opposition's reasoned amendment, which appears to express dissatisfaction with the Bill, does not match the views of Conservative Assembly Members or—in the light of his speech—those of the hon. Member for Ribble Valley. The reasoned amendment states that the Bill
fails to give families confidence that the Children's Commissioner will protect the interests of their children whilst not impinging on the rights and responsibilities of parents …
We must take a balanced view, but the reasoned amendment implies that no abuse occurs in families. That does not reflect reality. We know from investigations and the work of social services departments that there are no barriers to abuse, which sadly occurs across a wide spectrum of society.

Mr. Walter: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken and reads into the amendment something that is not there.

Does not he concur that, in bringing up children, parents' rights are important? Although no Conservative Member claims that child abuse does not occur in the family, the reasoned amendment suggests that the rights of parents should not be subservient to those of the commissioner. The amendment seeks to improve, not limit, the Bill.

Mr. Livsey: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that important point. However, we must also ensure that families do not have the right to abuse children. It is a fine line, and the implication that perhaps abuse in families never occurs is wrong; sadly, such abuse sometimes happens. We must achieve a balance, and I am glad that the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) has made his point.
The NSPCC and Children in Wales are worried about some omissions from the Bill, especially the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. We agree that it should be incorporated. We also agree with comments on non-devolved matters and cross-border services. For example, children from Wales can be in the custody of English local authorities. That happens in our part of the world, when children are often are fostered out to Herefordshire and Shropshire.
Some matters relate to the Home Office, especially aspects of court and tribunal decisions. Many of us are worried about young people who are in prison in England, and very far from home. I hope that the Children's Commissioner for Wales will work to establish the right of children from Wales to be in custody near their homes. Parents find it difficult to travel to visit their children who are in trouble and in custody far away. Young people experience much heartache when they are disconnected from Wales, not only physically but culturally. That matter should be addressed and investigated further.
We welcome the appointment of the Children's Commissioner, Peter Clarke, and wish him well. He has a tough job to do, but we know from his record with Childline that he is well able to do it. We also welcome the Bill, and will do all we can to give it a fair wind while also trying to improve it. There is every reason why it should be put on the fast track, as has been demonstrated by many speeches that we have heard this evening.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: I am delighted to be able to speak in this historic debate. For the first time since devolution, we in the House of Commons are providing the primary legislative framework for a policy made in Wales and for Wales. This example shows that the Welsh model of executive devolution can work when there is good will on both sides of the Severn.
I am pleased to be able to speak in the debate for another reason. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), I used to be responsible for children in Wales; my responsibility in the Welsh Office immediately preceded the establishment of the Welsh Assembly. I well remember my first briefing, in which some of the less than glorious history of child care in Wales and the responsibilities and failures of the Welsh Office were explained.
I am proud of the fact that during my time in the Welsh Office we published a White Paper on social services for Wales, entitled "Building for the Future", which proposed the option of an independent commissioner for children


in Wales. The Welsh Assembly has row developed those proposals, and, by giving such priority to the Bill, has shown that children's needs are—as they should be—a matter of great concern.
I warn my colleagues in Wales that they should not see the role of the Children's Commissioner as solving all the problems. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend pointed out, it is not a panacea that will meet all the needs of children. Although the commissioner will certainly help by acting as an advocate and a watchdog, he will not replace the requirement for all of us to be vigilant in preventing the abuse and neglect that sadly affect too many of our children.
Two recent constituency examples show that it is far too early for us to congratulate ourselves on having learned from past mistakes. As is often the case, the family histories of the children involved are very difficult. I shall not name them, but I think that their experiences will be familiar to members of all parties, because, sadly, they are not rare.
The first case is that of a boy of nine who, for good reasons, was excluded from school in November. He was seen by an educational psychologist during his first year at school and was assessed again during his second year, but he was not "statemented" until his fourth year. He has since been diagnosed as suffering from attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and has been prescribed medication. The local authority says that it has no available special-school place for the boy, but has offered one hour a day of home tuition. Since his expulsion in November, however, the child has been given just seven hours—one day—of tuition. His mother is distraught. She needs help and her son needs help, but they are not receiving it.
The second case involves an even younger child—a toddler, or baby, aged two. Her mother voluntarily placed her in care some 18 months ago. The child has since been placed in five foster homes, and no decision has been made about her long-term future. Will she be reunited with her mother, will she be adopted, or will she continue to be passed from pillar to post?
What is so poignant about that case is that the mother, who is not yet 20, was herself in care, and was placed with 10 different foster parents. Her two-year-old daughter is already halfway to meeting the record that she set. It would indeed be a tragedy if today's care system failed the daughter, as the earlier one failed the mother.
I welcome the appointment of the Children's Commissioner, but let us not leave the House this evening with the self-satisfied view that we have done what needs to be done by allowing the Bill a Second Reading. A great deal remains to be done. The Children's Commissioner will aid the process, but his appointment is not the only means by which we must try to help children. I believe that a great deal of current legislation—especially, perhaps, "best value" legislation—gives us scope to ensure that far more is done, effectively and efficiently, in social services and education departments.
Whatever the systems and processes that we enact, however, all of us—as legislators in particular, but also as responsible adults—have a duty to care for children, to be vigilant and to speak up on behalf of children. I hope and believe that the Children's Commissioner will be the greatest advocate for children in Wales, but he or she will not remove the responsibility borne by everyone else.

Sir Peter Lloyd: Several years ago, the Utting inquiry revealed an appalling history of abuse in children's homes in north Wales; but more shaming, in many respects, were the disbelief and the brick walls faced by children when they tried to speak up, and also by adults in the system when they sought to voice their suspicions. It took many years for the truth to come out. I fear that, because such a long time had elapsed and because the evidence was so old—and, as it would after all those years, relied so heavily on unsupported allegations—some guilty people have escaped and, even worse, some innocent people have been unjustly pilloried and possibly even convicted.
Certainly, abuses have been committed elsewhere in the United Kingdom and have not come to light because children encountered similar impediments to seeking help or simply being heard. The recent harrowing case of Anna Climbie, which has been mentioned several times today, is an extreme and particularly sadistic example.
It was right to devise a mechanism to check and test the systems of oversight for "looked after" children, and to try to give them a voice—or at least to turn a sensitive listening ear towards them. Legislation passed last year establishing a children's director in England and a commissioner in Wales was an important advance for "looked after" children, although, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) pointed out, it is not a panacea. It does not absolve anyone—legislators or citizens—from taking great care.
The Bill breaks new ground. It is, as we have heard, the first legislation promoted by the Welsh Assembly, and it extends the commissioner's remit to services supplied by the Assembly in Wales or substantially paid for from its budget. I should have preferred the commissioner and his staff to take up their original duties sooner, and to wait until they had gained some experience before extending their range. I hope that the commissioner will still regard "looked after" children as the most vulnerable and, therefore, as his immediate central concern. I hope that he will turn his attention to other matters only when he is confident that he has attended properly to those children and their institutional environment.
It makes sense for the commissioner eventually to extend his remit—perhaps, as the Bill does, in time, to all services involving children for which the Assembly is responsible or which it largely funds. However, I hope that the commissioner will use his judgment and find that he does not need to spend too much time on most of those services.
National Museums and Galleries of Wales, for example, caters for children, and in organising itself it should have in mind their interests and opinions. It should also balance the needs and interests of children with those of adults when they differ. If it is run by the right people, the commissioner really should not have to give it too much attention—although I am sure that that body would be grateful if the commissioner were occasionally to suggest ways in which it might better serve child visitors.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) made various searching points at the Dispatch Box earlier in the debate, and he was quite right to do so. However, I think that most of the points could and should be dealt with by amendments in Committee, rather than by rejecting the Bill. I was very glad to hear him say


words to similar effect. I therefore hope that, at the end of the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) will say that he sees no reason why the Opposition should press their reasoned amendment.
Nevertheless, I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley was right to suggest that the Bill might be improved if it made it clear that the commissioner should work with parents, who will often be the ones who make complaints on behalf of their children. The welfare of children does indeed depend fundamentally on strong family units. However, regardless of whether such a statement is in the Bill, any half-decent commissioner—and I am sure that Mr. Clarke will prove to be a decent one—will know that, and will wish to operate as an ally and supporter of good and concerned parents, rather than substituting his judgment and authority for theirs.
I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley was right also to be concerned that there could be duplication and confusion. However, that too will depend largely on the way in which the commissioner decides to operate. There is confusion enough in most public organisations about who exactly is in charge and how complaints can be effectively made, especially when children are concerned. I believe that if the commissioner enables the voice of children and their parents to be better heard and the shortcomings of which they complain to receive effective attention, the new system will clarify where responsibility and the power to remedy complaints really lie.
The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) quite rightly expressed his concern about the possibility that the commissioner will not be able to attend to the situation of Welsh juveniles in young offenders' institutions especially if they are incarcerated across the border, in England. May I suggest that the commissioner could approach that situation by speaking up and indicating the potential problem, and then talking to HM chief inspector of prisons—who, I am quite sure, would undertake any investigation on his behalf that he thought necessary? It has been remarked in the debate also that devolution is an opportunity for authorities on both sides of the border to work together. I think that attending to that situation is one such opportunity, and that such co-operation is one way of dealing with the worry that the hon. Gentleman quite rightly had.
I take it that the commissioner is responsible for his own budgets, as well as for what he says. I hope that the Minister will confirm in his reply that the commissioner will be able to use his budgets, and that he has enough in them to be able to conduct formal research and inquiries at second hand. I think that the commissioner will find that he needs some academic input and has to take on board people from outside to make particular inquiries when sufficient information is not available for him to make a judgment or to put points to the public and to Members of the Assembly.
I was glad to hear the Secretary of State say that, although the commissioner will be formally responsible only for covering the services belonging to the Assembly, there is nothing to prevent him from speaking more widely when he judges it to be necessary. I hope that the Minister will tell me if I am wrong, but I took that to mean that the commissioner can comment, for example, on court cases and on legislation—not merely on

devolved legislation from the Assembly, but on legislation that may be passed in this place. Will the Minister confirm that, although the commissioner's formal powers of investigation may be limited, his power to speak out when he thinks it necessary to make a point is in no way inhibited?
The commissioner has to make an annual report to the Assembly. I imagine that he is there to be summoned by the Assembly, to give evidence if the Assembly or one of its Committees so wishes. If he is, I hope that the Assembly and its Committees will make use of that.
Undoubtedly, the Assembly and the Government regard the commissioner as a champion doing battle for children against bad or insensitive people and organisations outside. However, I suspect that if the commissioner does his job properly, as is often the way with inspectors, his revelations and criticisms will occasionally come uncomfortably close to home—as regards the way in which Departments of the Government or the Assembly have behaved and in respect of the services that they offer. I hope so; it will do them good.
I wish the Bill very great success in its passage through Parliament, and look forward to England eventually learning from Welsh experience.

Ms Julie Morgan: I am very proud to be able to speak in this debate. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales said, the Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill is the first legislation considered by the House that has been asked for by the National Assembly for Wales and that deals only with Wales. It demonstrates the true spirit of devolution. The National Assembly for Wales, the Government and Parliament are all working together to produce legislation to improve protection for children in Wales.
I am very proud also that Wales is taking the lead on the issue. Devolution is all about finding the important issues for each part of the United Kingdom, and the Bill offers a shining example of what is important in Wales. All eyes will be on Wales to see how the commissioner deals with the varies challenges facing him. I am sure that he will provide an excellent example of what can be done. I know that he has the good wishes of all hon. Members.
Although this is a welcome day, as other hon. Members have said, it is also a sad day on which we are bound to remember all the children who have suffered, who have been abused and who have needed the voice of a champion. As other hon. Members have also said, although such a champion might not have stopped the abuse, he or she would have greatly improved the chances of its being stopped. We are bound to remember the young people in north Wales who were involved in abuse, particularly the 11 young men who later committed suicide. Several hon. Members have mentioned the horrific recent case of Anna Climbie.
The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) reminded us that, in addition to the scandals involving institutions, abuse also takes place in families, and that although families are the best places to bring up children, they can also be dangerous. Nor should we forget that domestic violence harms and damages children.
Given the background to the Bill, I find the Conservative amendment quite extraordinary. It is certainly out of tune with public feeling and with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans). Something must have gone wrong with the Opposition's planning and they probably deeply regret tabling the amendment.
Perhaps Conservative Members should consult their own party more widely. I was staggered by the dismissive way in which the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) referred to his colleagues in the Welsh Assembly almost as if they were beneath contempt. It is no wonder the Conservative party is in such a mess, given what has happened today. To be absolutely fair, however, all that is in contrast with the speech of the hon. Member for Ribble Valley. I believe that there is cross-party consensus and that Conservative Members have made a bit of a blunder by tabling their amendment. What they have said since shows that it was a bit of politicking that did not really come off. They should certainly consult their colleagues in the National Assembly more, and read what they have said. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to David Melding, a Conservative Assembly Member, as saying that the Children's Commissioner would be a great friend and champion of good, wholesome family life.

Mr. Walter: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. As we have pointed out on a number of occasions, we tabled our reasoned amendment to improve the Bill. She cannot claim that there is a great consistency between the views expressed by Labour Assembly Members and those of the Government. Article 29 of the report by the Assembly's Health and Social Services Committee suggests that the commissioner should have a remit over non-devolved areas, and continues:
However, we recognise that such a proposal would be subject to negotiation with the UK Government.
It is quite clear that the First Secretary has been unable to negotiate that. Not only is there no unanimity of view between Labour Assembly Members and Labour Members here, such as the hon. Lady is suggesting does not exist among the Conservatives, but there is in fact a unanimity of view, in that we are all seeking to make the Bill more effective.

Ms Morgan: There seems to be a direct contradiction between the views of Opposition Members and Assembly Members.

Mr. Chris Ruane: I have here the PA NewsFile report on the relationship between Conservative Assembly Members and Conservative Members in Westminster. It says:
Mr. Bourne recently insisted there was no division between Tory MPs and AMs over the Bill.
But today he conceded: "I thought that was the case at the time before meeting some of our team at Westminster. They were fully aware of our position and there was no indication at first that there was any difference. When I said that, I was certainly not aware of any difference. Subsequently I found out that there was a difference of emphasis but we are not going to change our position. We are not going to stand on our heads for anybody.
That is the position of Conservative Assembly Members in Cardiff.

Ms Morgan: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention.
The amendment is also contradictory. On the one hand it says that the Bill
fails to assert the importance of the family,
yet on the other hand it does not go far enough, because it fails to take account of UK public bodies. It is clearly out of touch with the vast majority of right hon. and hon. Members and the public—so today has not been the Conservative party's finest hour.
It is vital that the Children's Commissioner becomes a true advocate of all children in Wales. We do not want the commissioner to be inhibited about what he talks about and in the issues that young people bring to his attention. If children are in desperate circumstances, wherever they are and whether or not they are covered by devolved or non-devolved legislation, and if they approach the Children's Commissioner, it is absolutely essential that he should respond, comment on their case and make sure that something is done about it.
I was reassured by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State when he said that the Children's Commissioner should be able to comment on any matters affecting children in Wales. When the Under-Secretary of State for Wales replies to the debate, I hope that he will reiterate that. It is a matter that has concerned children's charities in Wales. They have a long history of campaigning for this post and they are anxious that we should do the best that we possibly can. If my hon. Friend can confirm that, it will go a long way towards addressing their concerns.
Let me take the opportunity to pay tribute to those charities, particularly Children in Wales, which has worked extremely hard to establish this post. Children in Wales is a conglomerate of children's charities which have long held the belief that a Children's Commissioner who is outside the system will be a true advocate for children in Wales and will help to improve their lives. I held that view for many years when I worked in the voluntary sector, and it is extremely important that we take on board the points that have been raised by the charities; my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has reassured us about one of the main ones.
I should also mention consultation with children. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) said that it was important to highlight that issue and discuss in Committee how it should be done. It will be a key issue for the commissioner. It is easy to say that we will consult children and young people, but it will take money, expertise and a great deal of working out to make certain that the views of representative children in Wales reach the commissioner and that he is able to gauge their views and concerns. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend said that it might be better to put that in the Bill; we could consider that in Committee.
Like my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I should like to mention how the commissioner was appointed, as it is something of which we should be proud. I am sure that it is a first for a public appointment, just as the Children's Commissioner for Wales is the first children's commissioner in the United Kingdom. Children were involved in the appointment in a unique way and for the first time in respect of a major public appointment in the United Kingdom. Seventeen children were involved in the process for a whole weekend; they interviewed all the shortlisted candidates and engaged in role play with the candidates. Two young people were voted by that group to be members of the final selection panel, which


also included political representatives and, I assume, an independent person—the first time such a major public appointment has been made in that way. That is a great tribute to the Assembly.
Some of the young people were interviewed after that process and were extremely proud of what had been done; they, too, felt that it was a historic occasion and that they had really contributed to making the office of the commissioner happen. They felt that they had a stake in the matter.
The Children's Commissioner will be effective only if he is known throughout the length and breadth of Wales, so that wherever there are children, they will know that the commissioner is the person to go to if they want something taken up, or if they have something to say and it has not been dealt with by more immediate channels. As other hon. Members have pointed out, the first point of access for many young people should not be the commissioner, but much more local bodies—probably the local authority or other channels. It is extremely important, however, that the name of the Children's Commissioner be known and that he himself be known throughout Wales, so that young people know whom to get in touch with. I hope that the commissioner will try to reach out to children imaginatively, to make certain that communication takes place.
I attended a conference at which the Danish Children's Commissioner, or ombudsman, spoke. He involved all the children in the audience in exercises to bring out their views on many issues. That was a tremendously exciting and enjoyable occasion. Although, in discussing the commissioner's post, we have concentrated on abuse, because the post was created as a result of the Waterhouse report and its terrible saga, we should also think about all the hopes and expectations of young people; we in Wales want them to fulfil their potential as much as they can. The role of the commissioner should be just as much to do with that as with the sad findings in Waterhouse.

Mr. Simon Thomas: The hon. Lady has given a good and exciting description of how the commissioner could affect the lives of children in Wales. Does she agree that the commissioner needs the right infrastructure and staff to be able to undertake his job? For example, is she aware of the difficulties of the Disability Rights Commissioner? Two of my constituents were told that their problems could not be considered for six months because of the overwhelming number of people who have approached that commissioner. Surely, we must avoid that scenario for the Children's Commissioner. We must impress on everyone the need for the right finances to be available to him.

Ms Morgan: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. We must ensure that resources are available. Although we refer to the commissioner, we are, of course, talking about the office of commissioner—the system involves more than one person. The hon. Gentleman did not mention that when the office of commissioner was set up under disability discrimination legislation, it was discovered that the vast majority of disabled people in Wales were unaware of the commissioners and of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, and of how to use them. We need to ensure not only that the disability

commissioners are well advertised, but that the Children's Commissioner is known. The publication of the commissioner's resources is extremely important.
Many of the points I had intended to make have been made by other hon. Members. Will my hon. Friend the Minister clarify whether the commissioner would be able to comment on the results of legal cases? He certainly would not be able to do so before the end of such proceedings, but a major part of the commissioner's role should be to comment on important issues that may be discussed throughout Wales, even if they did not arise from Welsh cases—such as the Venables case or the recent case on the separation of Siamese twins.
It is important that the commissioner should have the power to comment on such matters. There is some feeling among the children's charities that an amendment would be needed to establish that power. Will my hon. Friend reassure me about that point?
The measure refers to children who are "ordinarily resident in Wales". Does that include the children of asylum seekers, for example? In Cardiff, we expect asylum seekers shortly; we want to ensure that they have as good a welcome and are as well integrated as possible. Will the children of asylum seekers come within the remit of the commissioner?
It has been a great pleasure to speak in the debate. The measure is a big step forward. During my time as a Member over the past four years, it has been a great privilege to see devolution and the setting up of the National Assembly in Cardiff, and to see the introduction of the first Bill proposed to this House by the Assembly. I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments on the points that I have made.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: The Secretary of State, who opened the debate, is normally extremely fair and strives to express a reasoned view. He carefully went over the history of the commissioner and the various debates held in this place. Unfortunately, however, he omitted the fact that I was the first to raise the question in 1993, in a Committee of which he was a member. To be fair, both he and his hon. Friends supported my amendment and our discussions at that time, even though, unfortunately, the amendment was not accepted. I am referring to the Standing Committee on the Local Government (Wales) Bill.
It seems that the Conservatives have now decided that the commissioner is a good thing—at least I think they have. There is, of course, their reasoned amendment, but we shall see—the acid test will come at 10 o'clock.
Over the years, efforts have been made by many Members on both sides of the House. In 1993, there was support from the three Opposition parties; together, we did a considerable amount of work on the amendment. I received considerable assistance from Plant yng Nghymru—Children in Wales—to whom the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan) referred earlier. Hon. Members will undoubtedly acknowledge the huge efforts made recently by Children in Wales to secure the establishment of the post of commissioner—initially, as an adjunct to the Care Standards Act 2000 and, more recently, to propose that the office and its remit be extended and that the whole issue be moved up the political agenda. Such is the success of Children in Wales


that we are discussing the matter toddy. The organisation has worked hard lobbying Members of both the National Assembly and this place.
I unreservedly congratulate Children in Wales and thank its members and all its constituent bodies for all their hard work on behalf of our Welsh citizens of the future. I also congratulate Mr. Gareth Wardell on his appointment as chair of the organisation and wish him well in that office. He was an assiduous Member of this place—a highly regarded man and an excellent Chair of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs. He is an excellent choice to chair Children in Wales.
The amendment to which I referred would have imposed certain duties on the Children's Commissioner for Wales. I shall refer to it only briefly, because there is a feeling of deja vu about it now. We were talking then about the new local government set-up in Wales, and the main thrust of the amendment was that the commissioner should have regard to the principles laid down in the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, which has already been mentioned in the debate.
Secondly, there was a need to ensure co-ordination between voluntary organisations providing services for children and the principal councils. Another important factor was the need to consult children, and those who seek to promote children's interests, from time to time. That was the main thrust of the amendment discussed at that time, but although it had support it was not carried.
It is as true today as it was then that children are a special case. They need advocates, and the appointment of a commissioner then would have given them one. Now we shall have an advocate in place for children, who deserve special treatment—and as a Welsh person, I am proud that Wales is showing the way.
The right hon. Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd) made a measured and excellent speech—one of warm and constructive support for the Bill, which made a useful contribution to the debate. He too said that children need advocates and are a special case, and that he hoped that England would emulate Wales in this respect. Like him, I am sure that there is as much need for a children's commissioner for England as there is in Wales. That thought may be appropriate in connection with the debate about devolution in England—I know not—but whether that debate proceeds apace or not, I am sure that at some point the need for a similar office, with similar powers and duties, in England will be recognised.
The House should bear in mind the following principle:
The well-being of children requires political action at the highest level.
I have probably broken the pledge of a lifetime in quoting those words, because they are not mine but those of Baroness Thatcher. This is probably the last time that I shall quote her.
The obvious point is that today's children are tomorrow's society. Every one of us, whoever we represent, agrees that we owe it to future generations to ensure that our children are properly looked after. We must strike a blow on behalf of children, and I believe that the Bill is one such blow. It is a most welcome step in the right direction.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Before my hon. Friend goes into the detail of the Bill, does he agree that

in setting up the role of the commissioner we must not allow other bodies to believe that the holder of that office is taking the whole responsibility? The commissioner should not offer those bodies a means of escaping the responsibility that a host of local authorities, other public agencies and voluntary organisations now have. I hope that the Children's Commissioner will be able to remind them, co-ordinate them and encourage them, rather than being a means whereby they can avoid their responsibilities.

Mr. Llwyd: I entirely agree. I see the commissioner's role as similar to that of the Environmental Audit Committee in this House, which cross-cuts and examines each Department in turn to ensure best practice. That is the way forward. My right hon. Friend is right to say that in no circumstances must we scapegoat the commissioner's office or say that if something has gone wrong, it must be his fault. A lot of cross-cutting work has to be done, with devolved and non-devolved organisations, to establish a holistic approach.
I have already mentioned the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, and I firmly believe, and have believed for some time, that that convention should guide all our thinking on the subject. I agree with the suggestion made by Children in Wales and others, such as Professor Newell, an expert in the field who was mentioned by the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), that we should not leave references to rights under the UN convention as implicit. They should be explicit, and mentioned on the face of the Bill. I hope to be able to touch on that issue in a little more detail later, and I hope that we will be able to examine it further in Committee, because it is important.
No one in this place or outside would deny that bolting on to the Care Standards Bill the clauses that set up the role of the commissioner was a positive step in the right direction. To be fair, I must say that that was done with some degree of urgency in this place, in concert with our colleagues in the National Assembly.
We are now coming back, within a short time, to strengthen the commissioner's remit and extend it somewhat. The right hon. Member for Fareham said that perhaps it would be better if the commissioner were left for a while to settle down. With great respect, I disagree. Parliamentary time will always be in short supply, and there is also an urgent need to move on; I know that the right hon. Gentleman also believes that the matter is urgent. I can understand why he said what he did—it is perfectly logical that he should do so—but I cannot agree.
No one would deny that bolting the provisions on to the earlier Act, and then the introduction of this Bill, represent a massive step forward. However, with respect, I have to say that if the National Assembly had had the necessary legislative powers in the first place, no doubt it would have got things right in the first place. One only has to look at the reports and other paperwork that the Assembly produced, saying from the outset that it wanted a wider remit, to realise that that is so. That would have saved time in this place. Of course, for the sake of the children and young people of Wales, I am pleased that we are doing what is necessary now, but I think that had it been within the remit of the National Assembly, everything would have been done in one fell swoop. That may be conjecture, however.
On 11 September last year I had the honour of chairing a plenary session of the Human Rights International Alliance conference on children's rights, which was held in Central hall, Westminster. I was pleased to be there, because I was the only Member of this place to have been invited to participate, amid a glittering array of international politicians, sociologists and other academics, High Court judges and lawyers. Of course, I was out of my depth. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] That is very kind. This consensus is getting to me; it is not Christmas, is it?
As I extolled the virtues of the Children's Commissioner, and said that we in Wales had led the way, I thought that I was making a good point, which would go down fairly well. Far from it—many members of that knowledgeable audience were fully conversant with the role of the Children's Commissioner, which was then bolted on, as it were, to another Act. To a man and woman, they were quite disapproving, because the remit was such as to render the post a glorious piece of window-dressing.
I shrank in my seat and became less and less obvious as the debate went on. Moira Rayner, the director of the Children's Rights Commission for London, was one of the critics who eloquently described the shortcomings of the office as it was then set up. The criticism—at times, strident—was, however, constructive. I am therefore pleased that the necessary parliamentary time has been secured to address the failings of the current remit.
It is to the credit of the National Assembly that it undertook urgent, in-depth investigations into the issue and considered other European templates for the desired remit. It found that other European countries had commissioners who would act as advocates for children and promote the views of children in society. They would set their agendas as watchdogs and champions for children. They would review and report on aspects of children's matters by reference to the United Nations convention to which I referred.
Perhaps the best way to sum up the main thrust of the commissioner's remit is by quoting Children in Wales, which in its detailed brief states:
A Children's Commissioner needs to be able to start from the point of view of the child, and use the statutory powers in order to ensure the best possible outcomes for children.
I agree with the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans)—on this point only, I hasten to add—that a name change might be in order. It might be better if the commissioner were called the children's and young persons' commissioner because—this is an obvious point-14 or 15-year-old youngsters find being called a child almost abusive. That might inhibit them from making the necessary contact. I am sure that the Minister will consider such matters in Committee in due course. Such a change would represent a useful step forward.

Mr. Simon Thomas: Would it not be useful for the Government to consider that a similar debate occurred in Committee during consideration of the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000, because of the need to tell young people what their rights are and how they can gain access to advocacy services? The point was made about the need to address children and young people in terms that they

understand and think relate directly to them. Will my hon. Friend commend the points made in that debate to the Minister?

Mr. Llwyd: Yes, I will commend that debate to the Minister. I think that he served on that Committee.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hanson): indicated dissent.

Mr. Llwyd: I am wrong again. Oh well, such is life.

Mr. Hanson: I am afraid that I served on another Committee last year.

Mr. Llwyd: That is a kind response. I obviously got it wrong.
I appreciate that this is a Second Reading debate and that, therefore, it is not desirable, strictly speaking, to examine the minutiae of the Bill. Nevertheless, it is vital that areas of weakness are flagged up clearly, and I hope that I shall do so constructively. I am very much guided by the views of the National Assembly. In particular, I refer to the report of its Health and Social Services Committee, which was adopted by the National Assembly on 7 June 2000. The National Assembly was firmly of the opinion that the remits should be extended to cover non-devolved issues.
We have already debated devolved matters and I do not want to go over them again, but there could be a fundamental flaw in the Bill. The Bill, as I read it, will limit the commissioner's role to devolved matters only, thus reserved mattes s fall outside the scope. The hon. Member for Bridgend referred to some examples, including taxation, and I have mentioned social security, both of which obviously affect young people. With great respect, it is not good enough to say that the commissioner can comment on such matters.
I can comment on things from a standpoint of half-ignorance, and, being a politician, I do so very often. However, the commissioner will not have proper insights into and access to the internal workings of a body, so how can he or she be expected to make a reasoned and dependable comment on anything?

Mr. Win Griffiths: We are in danger of having a Committee debate, but I raised the issue and we can explore it in Committee. The commissioner will not be precluded from making intelligent comments because, by virtue of his status, he will have such access and will have compatibility with the similar people, bodies and institutions that exist to serve children in England and Wales.

Mr. Llwyd: I am not necessarily talking about institutions that serve children. With respect, we are talking about Departments, which deal with reserved matters. As a former Minister, the hon. Gentleman knows well enough that there are walls, Chinese walls and granite walls. Some Departments in this Administration would certainly not allow anyone to see anything—on a need-to-know basis or otherwise.

Mr. Griffiths: Surely the hon. Gentleman must realise that in Wales we are well used to the cultivation of leeks.

Mr. Llwyd: Touché.
I shall not deal with the point at length; it was well made by the hon. Gentleman. We have not taken issue with the length of the Standing Committee stage because we want the Bill to proceed with due haste, but without undue haste. I should like to raise such issues this evening so that the Minister will make a brief note of them and we can hear a measured response from him, rather than being told, as is sometimes the case, that the Government will go away and think about them. There is not much time to do so if the Bill is to return to the Floor of the House by 1 February. Unlike a normal Second Reading debate, it is important to deal with some of those details this evening.
I shall not deal with such matters at great length, but I want to flag up some tangible examples. Health, employment and transport are only partly devolved, but may affect children and young people. That could represent a fundamental flaw in the commissioner's role. I stress that I am trying only to be constructive, but if the commissioner is hampered in that way, the proposal will not be the success that we all want.
The commissioner seemingly cannot review or monitor matters such as juvenile justice. The right hon. Member for Fareham, having been a prisons Minister, knows how such things work, but I would prefer the remit to be extended, rather than having to depend on the good will of a Department, so that full information and proper access is given to the commissioner, enabling him or her to carry out the work properly.
Reference has been made to asylum seekers. Family law is currently made here, not in the National Assembly. Nationality, immigration, the environment and family law are all important. The commissioner would presumably not have direct access to the media which is a reserved matter. That is an important point because, like it or not, the media form a big part of young people's education nowadays.

Mr. Simon Thomas: I suggest that my hon. Friend add to his list the training for people in the medical profession and the national health service in Wales because the new Health and Social Care Bill—which will set new regimes and professional standards, especially for family GPs—will be decided on an England and Wales basis in the House. Surely, the Children's Commissioner will want to have an interest in how family GPs are trained, for example, to spot signs of child abuse.

Mr. Llwyd: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, who has experience of such matters, having been a councillor in Ceredigion for some years. I am confident that the Minister will take note of those matters and give a considered response in due course.

Mr. Gareth Thomas: The right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) has already referred to the need to guard against the dangerous belief that the commissioner will be a panacea for all ills. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if the commissioner's role is to be as effective as the strategic role envisaged by Waterhouse, it must be more focused? Although we can accept the enthusiasm of non-governmental organisations to broaden the commissioner's role, we have to be realistic.

Mr. Liwyd: The hon. Gentleman's standpoint is entirely logical, but obviously I do not agree with him, because the thrust of my argument is in the other direction.
It is a fundamental function of any independent children's champion that he should be able to comment freely on all matters that affect the rights and welfare of children and young persons. That was recognised in paragraph 29 of the National Assembly's report. The Bill broadens the powers of the commissioner, but also limits those powers very strictly to devolved matters—the issue raised by the hon. Gentleman. Although I differ from him, we are both sincere about the need to make the Bill work. I cannot help but think that the commissioner will have one hand tied behind his back if we do not include reserved matters in the Bill.
I suggest that the Bill include a provision similar to section 33 of the Government of Wales Act 1998, to empower the commissioner to comment on matters that are currently excluded. The provision could say, for example, "The commissioner may consider, and make appropriate representations about, any matter affecting children ordinarily resident in Wales." That would put the commissioner on a better footing and give him access to areas that are impenetrable at present. It would also enable the commissioner to take a holistic approach and to investigate or research anything that emerges as a key issue through consultation or other contact, such as letters of complaint from children or young people or matters identified by them as needing special consideration and improvement.
It should be noted that such an amendment would not confer decision-making powers. That would be inappropriate in the current devolution situation. The ability to monitor, report or comment only on the National Assembly's implementation of Westminster legislation is insufficient. I will not labour the point. There are contrary views, and I have no doubt that there will be further discussion at a later date.
The National Assembly's report also refers to
an over-arching aim of promoting and upholding the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
As hon. Members have already said, the Bill makes no mention of the convention. There is nothing terribly unusual about requesting such a reference because every Bill now bears a statement of compatibility with the European convention on human rights under section 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998. A Bill such as this should encourage all and sundry to act in a manner compatible with the UN convention. When we boil it down there is nothing esoteric or difficult about that convention; it is good common sense and good practice, and part of the commissioner's remit will be to ensure that best practice is adopted, as I am sure we all agree.
Clause 2 refers to the commissioner's duty to
promote the rights and welfare of children.
Of course that is welcome, but why cannot we add words such as "having particular regard to the United Nations convention on the rights of the child"? That would allay the concerns of many hon. Members. I would like the Minister to deal specifically with that question when he responds because it is of concern to a considerable number of children's organisations and Members of the House.
It is also the declared view of the National Assembly that the Bill should aim to uphold the UN convention. Several hon. Members have said that the Bill is an example of legislating in an area in which the National Assembly has no primary powers. If we make such a


clarion call and give ourselves a pat on the back, we should not, for heaven's sake, ignore the declared view of the Assembly. That fundamental point has considerable force. We must carefully take on board the legitimate, consensus view voiced by the Assembly; otherwise, legislating in this place on behalf of the Assembly is a sham. I am sure that we will return to that point.
Another concern is that the commissioner is precluded from commenting on the decisions of courts and tribunals. Other hon. Members have referred to that matter, so I shall not dwell on it. However, although everyone would agree that it would be inappropriate for the commissioner to comment on any cases that are sub judice, it cannot be right to preclude him from commenting on decided cases because law in this state is made not only by Parliament but by precedent in the courts. That is the way in which our constitution evolves. It is therefore as important for the commissioner to be able to scrutinise those decisions as it is for him to comment on the laws that we enact in this place, and his hands may be tied in that regard.
It would be rather perverse if the appointed children's watchdog in Wales were gagged and prevented from making comments on judicial decisions that might affect, adversely or positively, the children of Wales, while every other citizen was entitled to comment on any high-profile case. Reference has been made to the tragic case of young Damilola Taylor and the high-profile Bulger murder. The Bill will preclude the commissioner from commenting on those cases. That does not make sense. It will not only demean the commissioner's office but, more important, it will make his job more difficult. It will not sound good if, when invited to comment on a high-profile case, the guardian of children's rights has to say, "No comment." I ask the Minister to respond to that point.
Will the Minister also elaborate on section 74(3)(b) of the Care Standards Act 2000, with which he is of course conversant? Will that section confer on the commissioner the right of access to information and to people, which is seen as vital to his role? The significant words in that section are
requiring persons … to provide the Commissioner with … other assistance.
In the light of the Waterhouse report, many commentators feel that the right should be explicit in the Bill. That would place the commissioner in the same position as commissioners in other states and jurisdictions.
Will the commissioner be empowered to review the effect on children in Wales of the possible failure—dare I say this in the presence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley)?—the National Assembly to take action intra vires its powers on behalf of children in Wales? That power is explicit in clause 4(3), which allows the commissioner to review the failure of bodies to make appropriate arrangements for complaints procedures, advocacy and so on. Will that power extend to the National Assembly? If not, why not?
This has been a long road since the amendment that I tabled in 1993. Of course, I give credit to the Government and the Assembly for acting now and acting urgently, especially in the wake of the Waterhouse report and the horrible abuses that it uncovered. The Government and the National Assembly for Wales have moved rapidly in this instance and I am sure that all hon. Members are

grateful for that. However, we should not be too hasty with the Bill, as there are many points to be considered and amendments to be discussed properly in Committee.
It is true that the House sometimes legislates in haste and repents at leisure. We cannot afford to make that mistake with this ground-breaking Bill. My party and I did not challenge the timing and extent of the Committee sittings, and I hope that we shall have proper, reasoned discussion in Committee. Indeed, that is vital. For that reason, I shall break the habit of a lifetime and I, too, shall not vote against the guillotine motion. However, I hope that we will have a meaningful discussion, which is why I have flagged up certain points on Second Reading.
The Bill is not controversial. My earnest hope is that we will have sufficient time to debate the issues that I have mentioned and will strengthen the measure to safeguard generations of Welsh children and lessen drastically the possibility of the hideous events portrayed in the Waterhouse report being repeated. We have a vehicle that will enable us to listen to the views of our children and, more important, to act upon them to our children's advantage. We all owe it to our children and our children's children to get that right, and I sincerely hope that we shall do so.

Mr. Martyn Jones: Personally, I am delighted that, by their publication of the Bill, the Government have shown, yet again, the high priority that they place on the care and protection of children and young people in Wales. Judging by the favourable public reaction, there can t e little doubt that the Bill has been widely welcomed across the length and breadth of Wales as a positive step. It is a step towards fulfilling the expectations of the Welsh people and the recommendations of the National Assembly for Wales. It is also a step towards meeting the concerns of the House of Commons, following the dreadful events that precipitated the need for the Waterhouse inquiry into child sex abuse in north Wales.
I am sure that many right hon. and hon. Members from England, Scotland and Northern Ireland will eye the Bill with great envy. Surely, it forms a blueprint for similar legislation throughout the rest of the United Kingdom in the not too distant future. I am particularly heartened that the Bill has been welcomed by all the main nongovernmental organisations specialising in child protection in Wales: NSPCC Cymru, the Children's Society in Wales, Barnardos Cymru and Save the Children. On a personal note, I am pleased because, as far back as May 1999 the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, which I have the honour of chairing, made a clear recommendation in its third report, entitled "Childcare in Wales". It said:
We urge the Assembly to appoint a Children's Commissioner in Wales without delay.
That is not to say that the Assembly is answerable to the Welsh Affairs Committee. However, it listened and responded to the recommendation that we put to it.
It is interesting to note that, when the Welsh Affairs Committee took evidence in producing the report, the message that we received was clear and unambiguous and, I am proud to say, mirrors the essence of what we are debating in the House this evening. For example, the Committee was told that there was a need for a Children's


Commissioner for Wales who was empowered both to represent the needs and views of children and, importantly, to examine the services provided for children in Wales. The Bill delivers on the explicit demands that the Committee heard.
I should like to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) who, in his role as First Secretary of the Welsh Assembly, has wasted no time since last summer in ensuring that the post of Children's Commissioner for Wales has been filled as quickly as possible. Last month, on the day after the Queen's Speech in another place, my right hon. Friend announced that Mr. Peter Clarke, the former director of Childline Cymru, had been appointed the first Children's Commissioner for Wales. Along with those on both Front Benches and many other Members, I should like to wish Mr. Clarke every success in his new role. I am sure that, when enacted, the Bill will provide him with the necessary legislative framework to fulfil his role in future.
Confidence in the protection of children in care was severely undermined throughout Wales, following the heinous crimes—detailed in the Waterhouse report—which, sadly, were committed in north Wales a few years ago. I believe that the new Children's Commissioner, with the enhanced role that is provided for in the Bill, will have a pivotal role in renewing that confidence for future generations of young people in Wales.
When I read the Bill, I was pleased to see that the new commissioner will not only concentrate on those 3,000 young people in care in Wales. His role will also be extended so that he can act as a promoter of children's rights—the rights of every single child across the length and breadth of Wales—in future. In addition, the commissioner has a role in the oversight of complaints, has powers to undertake formal investigations on matters of principle and will undertake the role of observing child abuse investigations. I believe that we now have in Wales the basis for real and rapid improvement in the protection of children.
I should be grateful, however, if my hon. Friend the Minister would clarify some matters when he sums up later this evening. One such issue relates to the absence from the Bill of the responsibility of the Children's Commissioner for Wales to promote and monitor the implementation of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. The United Kingdom is a signatory to the convention, and we have already heard eloquent and learned remarks on that from the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd). I understand that, in other European countries, such duty is charged to an agency with a role equivalent to that of the Children's Commissioner for Wales. I should therefore be grateful for clarification on that matter. In particular, if that issue is not addressed by the Children's Commissioner for Wales, how does my hon. Friend see it being addressed from a Welsh perspective?
I should be grateful if my hon. Friend could respond to a concern that has been expressed to me about the Bill regarding the flexibility for future change. If it was felt that the powers and role of the Children's Commissioner needed to be enhanced further at some stage, how easy

would that process be?Would it require further primary legislation—as in the current instance—for change to take place?

Mr. John Hayes: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He asked an important question about the scope of the commissioner's role. Does he feel, like me, that there is a need for clarification of the commissioner's relationship with other agencies? I refer particularly to the relationship between the commissioner and education authorities regarding, for example, children's special educational needs and the protection of their interests. Extra legislation might be required to enable the commissioner to fulfil such a role.

Mr. Jones: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention: that is precisely the kind of issue to which I am referring. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was present at the beginning of our debate, but the Secretary of State referred to the possibility that the Children's Commissioner would be allowed to comment on other matters. I am not sure whether we need to codify that in law.

Mr. Hayes: Again, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I was here when the Secretary of State said that, which is why I intervened on the hon. Gentleman. Allowing the commissioner to comment on those issues is different from giving him an active role—a proactive role, even—in dealing with them. The hon. Gentleman made an interesting point about the legislation that may be necessary to facilitate such a proactive role.

Mr. Jones: I hope that the Minister will respond to that point. We are happy and proud to welcome the Children's Commissioner for Wales as a pilot that, I hope, will be taken up throughout the United Kingdom. The role may have to grow and unforeseen matters may arise. Even in Committee, amendments may be tabled relating to areas to which the hon. Gentleman and I, too, am referring. The commissioner's role may need to be extended. I hope that the Minister will respond to that point at the end of our debate because, as the hon. Gentleman said, it is important.
The Bill is pioneering and is an important first step. However, further change may be required to ensure that Wales—and the rest of the country, if it takes this proposal up—keeps abreast of further developments in the sphere of children's legislation.
Although society will never be able to guarantee the most vulnerable children complete protection from being targets of those intent on committing sexual and physical abuse, I believe that the Bill provides the children of Wales with a fresh start and sends a clear signal to those who prey on our children that their evil ways will not be tolerated.
By giving the Bill a Second Reading, the House can be proud that it is responding to the needs of children in Wales. The Government, to their credit, acted quickly on the recommendations of the Waterhouse and Welsh Affairs Committee reports. By bringing the Bill before the House, the Government have shown that they are prepared to act decisively again—this time to shore up the commissioner's role as laid out in the Care Standards Act


2000. I urge all right hon. and hon. Members to give the Bill their unreserved support and to oppose the reasoned amendment, which the Opposition have so irresponsibly tabled. If agreed to, it would block this useful legislation.

Sir Raymond Whitney: I shall make only a brief contribution on the basis of the short time that I spent as a Minister at the then Department of Health and Social Security during the 1980s, when I had responsibility for social services work throughout the country. In that connection, I should say that I was immensely assisted by Sir William Utting, who of course produced such an important report on the problem of boarding accommodation and the treatment of youngsters in Wales.
My own background is that for the past 13 or 14 years I have been chairman of a small national charity that works among young people in 10 cities and towns in England and one in Northern Ireland. That gives me a certain insight from a particular point of view, which I shall discuss in more detail.
Before I do so in terms of the substance of the Bill, I shall comment on a point made by the Secretary of State. He welcomed the Bill, as do we all, but welcomed it as an act of constitutional significance. I have to say, rather sadly and ruefully, that I agree. It is significant that the measure has flowed back to us from the National Assembly for Wales to be dealt with in the Chamber as primary legislation. To put it at its mildest, the Bill leaves so many loose ends. For example, we had to set aside Standing Order No. 86 and we face the issue, which many hon. Members have discussed, of what is or is not to be done with the non-devolved legislation. The Secretary of State said, "The commissioner would not be debarred from comment if it was not in his statutory remit." Big deal, as one might say. None of us is debarred from comment. That is a serious problem that highlights the constitutional inadequacies of what we have created, and it is of course only the latest of many examples.
Although this matter is a long way from children in Wales, I hope that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will allow me a moment to raise it. The other day, a Chinese delegation—remarkably perhaps, a constitutional commission considering ways to run countries—was in this country. When its members arrived in London, they thought that they had found the holy grail or reached Mecca—they were in the most ancient, stable and mature democracy where we have all the experience and all the answers.
Over the delegation's time here, I watched its members as they saw what was happening in Wales and in Scotland—Ireland they knew was a problem—and with the Mayor of London. They also considered whether we are to have regional assemblies and all the rest of it. They were simply staggered that we were in such a mess. Were they listening to the debate, they would realise that we are still tacking the Bill together and leaving those loose ends even though we all agree with and welcome the proposal and know what is needed. That is highly unsatisfactory.

Mr. Llwyd: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting China as a democratic model to follow.

Sir Raymond Whitney: No. Had the hon. Gentleman been listening a little more carefully, he would have heard

me say that, of all countries, we were being visited by a constitutional commission from China. I think that Hansard will confirm that. I have some background in China, which is why I was involved in that visit. I find the country particularly intriguing and let us have our fun, but I hope that he accepts that my point is a serious one. Indeed, he referred to the unsatisfactory nature of the issue of non-devolved legislation. Having said that, we all agree that the Bill deals with an immensely important matter and anyone who has been closely involved in it for any time and in any capacity knows just how difficult it is.

Mr. Hayes: Before my hon. Friend moves on to describe his own insight on those matters, which I know is profound, will he acknowledge that the picture of inconsistency that he paints could be worse than even he foresees? Expectations will be raised by the measure, which is precisely why I posed my question about the scope and extent of the commissioner's responsibilities. If expectations are raised but are then thwarted because the constitutional bars that he describes are in place, we may be in a situation even worse than that which he describes.

Sir Raymond Whitney: I would not vie with my hon. Friend to paint the darkest shade of black, but we have the same misgivings.
Work with young people was difficult when I had to deal with it. In my experience, it has become more difficult in the past 10 or more years. For example, until recently, my own charity always targeted young teenagers—the 12 to 14-year-olds. The idea was to spot trouble, head it off and lead their energies into productive rather than destructive areas. We opened a new venture a few months ago and the people on the ground—parents, the residents association, teachers and the Churches—said to us, "No, no, no. It is no good leaving it until the children are 12 or 14. You have to go in much earlier." They suggested five; we compromised on eight. That is a measure of the challenge facing society.
The other challenge is to strike a balance, as always, between rights and duties, in particular those of parents. I always felt great admiration for many and sympathy for all the social workers with whom I dealt. They had an immensely difficult job. Social workers will always get some things wrong. They either intervene too quickly and too strongly or hold back and things go wrong. That results in the terrible reports that we read all too regularly in the press. We were reminded only last week of how bad that can be.
There are great dangers. Knowing of them, I was somewhat worried by another phrase used by the Secretary of State, who said, "The role of the commissioner extends to all children in Wales." Well, yes, but there is an awfully worrying echo in that statement. I do not know Mr. Peter. Clarke, but everyone speaks highly of him, and I am sure that he will be aware of those anxieties. His remit should not, need not and must not cover certain areas, and many children and many homes will not need his intervention. We must ensure that the family is sound and well supported by the other agencies of government. It is open to challenge whether Chancellors of the Exchequer, either of the previous Conservative Government or this Government, and


policies concocted in the Treasury are conducive to achieving the objective that we all share: the solid family unit.

Mr. Dawson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that good, decent, ordinary parents want to promote the rights of their children and the participation of their children in society, and want to know that their children, wherever they are inside or outside the home, are protected and have their rights upheld?

Sir Raymond Whitney: Absolutely. I spend some of my spare time helping to achieve that very end—there is no doubt about that. We are putting great onus on the Children's Commissioner, which is a good thing, but I strongly endorse the points that many hon. Members have made. This measure is no panacea, and the problem cannot be left entirely to the commissioner. The other agencies concerned must not think that they have been let off the hook. That is the strong message coming out of the debate. I have no doubt that Mr. Clarke does not need to hear that message, because if he is as good as everyone tells me he is, he will know it already.
An important balance must be struck. One can feel the tensions only when one is working on the ground. I have no reason to suppose that this measure will not be a useful pathfinder. I share the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd). There may be a case for going a little slower. My first reaction as an Englishman is to say, "What about England?" Having got to where we are, perhaps we should see how the concept works in practice in Wales, and adopt it or modify it.
The English dimension is important, but it often gets forgotten, and this is a glaring example of that. It behoves the Government to take note of that. So far, they have had a pretty easy ride. The English are very quiescent and quiet, and the eyes of people in the audience often glaze over when I try to warn them about the impact of devolution. So far the penny has not dropped, but it is beginning to drop. There will be trouble ahead when people realise that the Scottish people enjoy different treatment and that there are differences in Wales. It behoves all of us to take note of that danger and to avoid that trouble.
I welcome the creation of this new post, with the caveats that many hon. Members have made. I shall deal with the famous reasoned amendment—[HON. MEMBERS: "Infamous."] I thought hon. Members might say that, as it has come under so much criticism. The procedures of this extraordinary place in which we do our business lead to such oddities. I entirely agree with the thrust of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans). We are trying to probe the Government to ensure that all the issues are brought out into the open and examined, especially in Committee. Before making up my mind about the reasoned amendment, I shall listen carefully to the winding-up speech of my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter).

Mrs. Betty Williams: I have received many letters and telephone calls about the Bill before and after its publication. I should like to thank children's organisations in Wales—I shall not mention them, in case I leave any of them out—for their highly responsible

lobbying of Members of Parliament and Members of the National Assembly for Wales to achieve the aims of the Bill.
The Care Standards Act 2000 was an excellent start and offered protection for children. It has been welcomed by scores of individuals, organisations and local authorities. The Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill is a further measure to protect children, so 12 December, which was when it was published, is another important milestone. The Bill is another clear example of how much the Government care about children's welfare and safety.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales on the speed with which they and the Government responded to the calls for the appointment of a Children's Commissioner. After the Waterhouse report recommended the creation of that post in February last year, the Care Standards Bill was amended. At the beginning of December, Peter Clarke was appointed commissioner. I am sure that the House will join me in wishing him all the very best in his new post. We must not underestimate the enormous task that he faces.
Peter Clarke comes from Childline Wales, which is a successful organisation where he gained valuable experience in dealing with highly sensitive and complex issues concerning children in Wales. The National Assembly for Wales and child care organisations called for an extension of the commissioner's powers, and the Government have responded with this new Bill. That is further proof of how the partnership between the National Assembly for Wales and the Government is working and delivering for Wales. It is an excellent example of devolution working for Wales by responding quickly with primary legislation in Westminster to address the particular needs of Wales.
Wales has led the way in the United Kingdom with the creation of this post. It shows that the Government accept that devolution means tackling problems in different ways in different parts of the United Kingdom.
Yesterday in Cardiff, the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs published its report on social exclusion in Wales. During our inquiry, we took evidence from children's organisations and from young people themselves. We said in our report:
The vulnerability of children looked after by local authorities has been highlighted by the North Wales Child Abuse Tribunal. We welcome the National Assembly's swift response to the Tribunal's report and the priority which it is giving to meeting the recommendations made.
We also said:
We were impressed by the work being done by the Children's Rights Service in North Wales (whom we visited in Wrexham) both in providing advocacy for children looked after, and, more particularly, in assisting them in speaking up for themselves. We suggest that all local authorities—and, more particularly, the children in their care—could benefit from an independent Children's Rights Service similar to those already in operation in some parts of Wales.
I should like my right hon. Friend to clarify two matters. First, if a child from Wales receives education, health care or social care outside Wales, what remit does the Children's Commissioner for Wales have to make decisions and consider issues that relate to those providing authorities? My second point is more complex and concerns another vulnerable group in society. Adults with severe learning disabilities might never be able to become


witnesses in a court of law. The main fears of a parent of such a child is how that child is protected against possible abusers and who will protect him or her when the parents die.
I speak as a mother of a 27-year-old young man who has the mind of a very young child. He would never be able to tell me if he had been physically or mentally abused. I hope that what we are discussing is welcome on both sides of the House. However, I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend could say whether he is willing to extend the commissioner's remit even further to cover that vulnerable group of people.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: I take the view that children are just like adults who tell the truth about how they feel, and have not forgotten to marvel at the world of people and the nature that is around them. Child abuse is a form of robbery. Abusers often have tremendous problems of their own, such as psychosis. It is almost as if they trade their pain for the innocence of the children they abuse. That pain and abuse can never really be satisfied or resolved in that way and the child who is being abused quickly becomes robbed of his or her happiness. Abused children tend to hide their feelings. In some ways, they live as children who have an almost adult sad attitude to the burdens that they have inherited from their experiences. Sadly, statistics tell us that they may repeat the cycle, which is difficult to break.
The tragic experiences of abused children in Wales have for once not led to a knee-jerk reaction in the Chamber. However emotionally involved we may feel as a society, or how those people who are directly involved may feel, we have taken stock. It is to the great credit of politicians and, in particular, the organisations that attempt to help such victims, often on a voluntary basis, that we have found our way to a truly constructive political opportunity that could make a profound difference to past and, especially, future victims of abuse. The determination of whether the Children's Commissioner has been successful is if we prevent abuse from happening. That is not a short-term goal. We will not know for many years whether his work is successful. It serves as a great source of optimism to me that we are discussing the issue on a broadly cross-party basis and, more to the point, with a genuine insight, which has been fed to us by the many organisations that have probably briefed us all, and from our experience of life.
A number of issues will be raised in Committee. Most have been mentioned. The need for the Children's Commissioner to be empowered to consider and to make appropriate representations on any matter that affects children in Wales was well described and I shall not repeat the argument. The importance of the commissioner having direct contact with children cannot be overstated, not least because there is no doubt in my mind, as the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for young people, that they do not believe that the political system is for them and that there is a voice in the corridors of power for them to turn to or trust to be their advocate.
Children who are put off at a fairly young age from everything that we do here are unlikely to inherit an interest in us or find us appealing later on. If children are

victims of abuse and do not have faith in the systems, they will not turn to them for help. If the Children's Commissioner has direct contact with children and progressively builds respect and a culture of hope among them so that they believe that they have a voice, that will be tremendously important. I suspect that amendments will help to achieve that.
It has already been stated that the United Nations convention on the rights of the child should be promoted by the commissioner. The Government might be a little hesitant to allow that to happen because it might have knock-on consequences for the rest of the United Kingdom. It is clear from working on Northern Ireland human rights legislation that some parts of British society do not live up to the full spirit of the convention on human rights. Allowing the commissioner to have such powers in Wales would probably have a ripple effect. We should not be scared of that. We are, after all, signatories and even if there are unintentional consequences, such as not having a differential minimum wage between young and older people, so be it, because it would also be healthy. We would be putting our money where our mouth is if we say that the strategy is to get it right and ensure that we change those aspects of our activities that are some way from our desired goal.
Hon. Members asked for the commissioner to be given powers to promote public awareness of children's rights. That was spot on, but we must ensure that we do not give him a nebulous goal that we do not understand in specific terms or which is not achievable. With such an aspiration, we have to ensure that there are resources and opportunities to go with his responsibilities. For example, if we are serious about a giving the commissioner the power to promote public awareness, he must have access to the highest levels of government in Wales. That would not be hard because the Welsh Assembly is clearly behind the proposal.
We must be holistic about those considerations. Save the Children raised the concept of holism with me only today. Rebecca Hickman, who is one of its key officers on the Bill, rightly explained that we must ensure that we end up with a holistic vision and a job that is internally consistent. As we amend the Bill, we must ensure that we do not tack on everything that we want and create a confusing role that is not manageable by one person.
Other points have been made. I shall refer to only two, because repetition is not always helpful.

Mr. Evans: What was that again?

Mr. Öpik: Repetition is not always helpful. Sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the hon. Gentleman presented me with an irresistible opportunity.
It will be interesting to hear the clarification of what the commissioner is allowed to investigate with regard to devolved powers. The Assembly's report on the Children's Commissioner has been mentioned. Paragraphs 29 and 30 address that matter to some extent. They seem to imply that the commissioner is expected to have reasonably clear powers in that regard. Paragraph 29 states:
The widest possible functions in respect of non-devolved policies and services should be explored and, as a minimum, the Commissioner should be able to consider and make representations in respect of any non-devolved matters affecting children in Wales in a way similar to the Assembly's right under section 33 of the Government of Wales Act.


Therefore, it seems that the Assembly takes a similar view to Members in this House. I suspect that the issue does not cause the Minister and the Government much difficulty, but we must be careful to be consistent in what we ask of the commissioner and ensure that any enabling amendments that we table are consistent with the general constitutional arrangements of the United Kingdom.
We must test the Bill and any amendments to it in the light of cross-border provision. That point has already been made, but I highlight it now because it will be a potential source of strain in the commissioner's work if he cannot carry out his desired functions and achieve the Minister's aspirations simply because of something that we have missed at this stage. Given the importance of the issue before us, it would be a travesty if insufficient scrutiny led to a tragedy in the way in which children are treated.
The Waterhouse report and the Children in Wales briefing refer to suicide and the importance of the commissioner having a right of access to institutions. That is vital. Although it may not be pleasant to refer to this issue, the consequences of abuse last a lifetime unless the people involved are treated. Even then, the echoes of their tragic past may recur from time to time. A number of people who gave evidence to the Waterhouse inquiry said that suicide is often a consequence, so the right of access is one insurance policy that we could establish. It is not absolutely reliable, but it would empower the commissioner and his staff and that might ensure that we have a better chance of detecting the problems before they occur.
I am concerned about the tone of some parts of the Bill. Much of it is about looking for the danger signs and the problems, but I wish to ensure that we do not create a children's police officer—someone who simply polices Wales to ensure that bad things do not happen. We do not want to create a culture of suspicion in which everyone looks over their shoulder and many people fear that a malicious claim could be made against them and that they will be investigated in a high-profile way by the commissioner.
We need to give thought to the precedents that the commissioner's mode of operation will set and to ensuring that we do not create a culture in which we assume that someone might be an abuser or might not be treating children in an appropriate fashion. That is unlikely to happen across the whole of Wales, but, if we are not careful, there may be a residue of concern in places that have historically been associated with abuse if they have not already been closed down. Discussion of possible solutions is more appropriate for the Committee stage, but I mention that as a strategic issue now.
My other concern about the Bill's tone is that, although it mentions empowerment, it is primarily aimed at preventing abuse. Would it not be great if kids could view the commissioner as someone who could help them to make the best of themselves? The commissioner could occasionally present ideas to the Assembly or to this House that could genuinely add value to the opportunities that children in Wales enjoy. That would provide a fantastic opportunity and would put the question of stopping cruelty in context. Society's objective is not to prevent cruelty, but to help people make the best of themselves and to help kids feel that they can achieve their potential. That is the other side of the

commissioner's role. I hope that, in Committee, thought will be given to how we can provide him with that positive opportunity.
I suspect that if we do that, young people will become much more inclined to think that they can access the commissioner and participate in his work directly. They will not feel stigma or think that they can call the commissioner only if they have been abused. They will not think that calling the commissioner means making a confession about the suffering that they have experienced.

Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman speaks passionately about the subject, and rightly so. Has he, like me, received representations from people who work in organisations that deal with young people? In many cases, they find the fee of £11.75 that has to be paid to consult criminal records quite prohibitive. One measure that might help many organisations to weed out the undesirables from working with young people would be to allow them to go through the criminal records without incurring an enormous cost.

Mr. Öpik: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, even though he was a little horrible to me earlier. As he suggests, the Children's Commissioner has an opportunity to bring the issue of police checks into his role. Through appropriate lobbying in Wales at least, we might be able to ensure that people do not have to pay for the privilege of proving their innocence. That issue is of great concern to many organisations involved in youth work in Wales. I hope that the Minister and the Committee will consider the suggestion.
I want to make a few observations about the political opportunity that the Bill presents. Although the matter did not appear in the Conservative party's manifesto in Wales, it is a source of great encouragement that, on a cross-party basis in Wales and almost on a cross-party basis in this Chamber, we are achieving a powerful consensus that sends a strong message.
I shall now be a little horrible to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), because he claimed that he was trying to help the Bill. If his approach is his idea of helping the Bill, I wonder what tools are in the Conservative party's repertoire for harming it. There is a consensus and consensus politics might be a little less sparky than opposition politics, so we should perhaps thank him for giving the rest of us the chance to unite in criticising the reasoned amendment. However, will he consider what message will be sent if Conservative Members vote for the amendment? Although it may be a parliamentary tool, it has already been made clear that on this issue, at least, we should not descend into a party political discussion when all of us, including the Welsh Conservatives, have worked hard to create a consensual approach in line with the new politics that many of us sincerely hoped would evolve in Cardiff.
I encourage the hon. Gentleman to reconsider pushing the amendment to a vote. As I said earlier, not a single youth-related organisation in Wales will thank the official Opposition for voting for it. It sends the wrong signals. Although they may have talked themselves into a corner tonight, I hope that, whatever happens, they will take a more constructive approach in Committee. Incidentally, if the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that I join the Labour party reflects the Conservative party's new recruitment policy, it shows just how much its self-confidence has declined.
I am almost certain that some Members of this Chamber have been victims of child abuse. I do not know who they are, but it would be statistically extraordinary if, out of 659 Members, not one of us had suffered from such an experience. Guided by our experiences as children, by the experiences of those of us who faced unhappier times and by the experiences and expertise of the organisations that briefed many Members so effectively, I hope that the Bill will achieve three objectives.
First, I hope that it will empower those children's organisations truly to feel that they can participate in the political processes by seeing their suggestions turned into amendments that are accepted on a cross-party basis.
Secondly, I hope that we can show that we sometimes put party politics second to the people's politics. Thirdly, I hope that we can develop a partnership between Westminster and Cardiff. That relationship has occasionally been strained, but on this issue we have the opportunity to work together and to say something encouraging to the Welsh people, perhaps for the first time: when Westminster and Cardiff think together, talk together, argue together and put their heads together to try to do what is right, we shall get better legislation than we would without a devolved Assembly.
That is all being done to achieve a result that we all want and about which we care profoundly. That is to give kids a real chance of a better life and to give kids who have been damaged a chance to heal. To paraphrase the words of the NSPCC—which has coined a phrase about which I feel passionately—perhaps we can also, finally, put a full stop to cruelty to children in Wales.

Mr. Hilton Dawson: I start with an apology for being absent from the debate for a couple of hours on some previously arranged business in the House. I am sorry that I missed what I hear has been an extremely good-natured and participatory debate on all sides.
It is a privilege to have the opportunity to take part in the debate, not least as an English Member of Parliament trespassing in a country that I have not visited since I took my kids there on a very nice seaside holiday in the early 1980s. Principally, I am here because I am extremely interested in the development of the Children's Commissioner. The proposal is extremely important, and I hope to elaborate on why it is important as we go on.
We need to acknowledge the progress that the Bill represents. We need to reflect on and savour the aim of this excellent and far-sighted measure. It will enable the commissioner to review the effect on children ordinarily resident in Wales of actions and proposed actions of the Assembly and of bodies and persons operating in Wales that have statutory functions or provide statutory services in functional fields devolved to the Assembly. That is a great step forward for children. This is a real slice of history, and it represents real progress in the way in which we see, serve and protect children.
Many congratulations are due to the people involved in the introduction of the Bill. I have had the pleasure of meeting in the House a number of young people from

Wales, usually in the context of the all-party group for looked-after children Invariably, they have been strong, articulate, determined and very committed to the idea of a Children's Commissioner. This measure is one of the fruits of devolution, and the Welsh Assembly is to be congratulated on its work and on the priority that it has given to a social policy issue that has been neglected for far too long. The fact that the Assembly is prepared to give so much priority to the measure illustrates the health and progressive nature of that body.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman waxes lyrical about the Bill, but will he explain why the Government have given priority to the rights of children in Wales but have not been prepared to give the same rights and protection to children in England? Surely children in England and Wales—and, indeed, Scotland and Northern Ireland—deserve the protection that is to be afforded by the Bill.

Mr. Dawson: I could not agree with the hon. Gentleman more. That will be the theme of my speech.
To return to the thread of my argument, the Welsh Assembly should be congratulated, but the Government need to be congratulated too. Less than a year ago, even when the Waterhouse report was published—the report is one good reason for the measure being introduced in Wales—the Government were not committed to introducing a commissioner whose remit would go beyond that of the children's rights director, as set out in the Care Standards Act 2000. The children's rights director is a very important post for children who are looked after or who are living away from home, but the Bill goes much further than that.
The Government are to be congratulated on listening to the issues dealt with by the Bill, and on the fact that, in their formal response to the Waterhouse report, they said that they would examine how the post of Children's Commissioner worked out as a result of the Bill, with a view to introducing further legislation for England. I am pleased to hear that, because a Children's Commissioner offers fundamental protection for children, but an independent office with a children's rights commissioner would promote the participation of children in society and awareness of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child among those working with children.

Mr. Evans: While the hon. Gentleman was absent from the Chamber, I congratulated him on his private Member's Bill, which deals with that issue. He represents Lancaster and Wyre and I represent Ribble Valley. Will he accept that it is absurd that children in Wales should receive greater protection than children in England? They should all be protected equally, with a children's commissioner operating in Wales and in England. We congratulate the Government on introducing the Bill, but they should also introduce legislation to protect children in England.

Mr. Dawson: The hon. Gentleman heard my response to the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown). He can take it from me that I agree with that fundamental point.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dawson: May I carry on for a while before I allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene again?
I have brought to the House twice—in 1999 and 2000—the Children's Rights Commissioner Bill. It proposes the setting up of a children's rights commissioner in England, with linked officers in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. It is 16th in the ballot for private Members' Bills, so I shall reintroduce it tomorrow. Given the Government's attitude to the measure, I think that there might be some progress on it. Their determination to introduce a root-and-branch reform of the child protection system and the Laming inquiry into the horrible death of Anna Climbie, should it come about, could result in further progress on the idea of a children's rights commissioner in England.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: We all agree that the hon. Gentleman's private Member's Bill is a good thing. Will he urge his colleagues on the Front Bench to give his Bill Government time? After all, a precedent has been set by the Hunting Bill. If the Government it can make time for the Hunting Bill, surely they can do so for the hon. Gentleman's Bill. Furthermore, does he agree that, as this is such an important issue—we are all in favour of the protection of children—the Government ought to protect the maximum number of children by extending the Bill to England as well as Wales?

Mr. Dawson: There would be no sense in my introducing a private Member's Bill that I did not really want the Government to take on and give their own time to.
The introduction of a children's rights commissioner for England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales would be of fundamental importance in protecting children, promoting the participation of children and encouraging a different way of viewing children, which in itself would aid their protection. It would be a way of viewing children as developing adults with individual human rights, rather than as objects of concern about whom we have great debates and hear terrible shock-horror stories when awful events happen but then neglect and ignore. Children in this country do not have a vote and are, by definition, powerless. They often do not have a voice, and their interests are often set aside.
The Bill could be improved in the way that I described in an intervention on the Secretary of State. A Government who have done such powerfully good work in relation to child poverty should ensure that the fundamental safeguard for children's rights in Wales can inquire into issues surrounding social security. I do not have an explanation of why the Children's Commissioner can examine the position of children who are looked after in Wales, but as yet has no statutory role in relation to young people who are in custody or who are in other parts of the youth justice system. I do not recognise any distinction that explains that.
As many hon. Members have said, the Bill should make reference to the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. Almost every country in the world has signed up to the convention. Two have not done so: one is Somalia, the other is the United States of America.

Anyone who had seen today's disgraceful coverage of the sale of children over the internet in the United States of America would advocate that every state in that union get hold of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child immediately to deal with that appalling situation.
I should like the Children's Commissioner to be able to report freely, to have no limit on the matters to which he may contribute, to be able to represent children's views, to be able to comment on the effects of United Kingdom legislation on children in Wales, to have direct contact with children and to be able to review the effect of a failure of services in Wales as well as the provision of them. Above all, the Children's Commissioner should be someone of whom children in Wales are aware. The commissioner should be able to take on a dynamic role, enabling children's participation.
I was sorry to read the not particularly reasoned amendment tabled on behalf of the Conservative party. It is, quite simply, a ludicrous idea that the Bill could be any sort of attack on parents. I would say to every parent in the land that no ordinary, sensible parent has anything to worry about in relation to children's rights.
I do not often give the Conservatives their due, but in the Children Act 1989, a very fine and noble measure, they abolished the concept of parental rights and introduced the concept of parental responsibility—a way of looking at relationships within families that is fundamentally different from the one that had prevailed previously. The fact that Members of the party that could introduce that legislation less than 12 years ago have now got to the silly scaremongering stage that we see in the reasoned amendment is a reflection of how far they have moved—how far they have fallen.

Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman is saying that he wants to give some due to the official Opposition, and he has said that he is looking to extend the powers of the Children's Commissioner beyond the devolved areas. Several Labour Members have done the same, as have Members on the Liberal and Plaid Cymru Benches, and that is an integral part of our reasoned amendment. It seems as though everyone agrees with our reasoned amendment but wishes that we had not tabled it.

Mr. Dawson: The hon. Gentleman cannot get away with that one. The large part of his reasoned amendment, and the part that leaps off the page, is the entirely unsubstantiated claim that a Children's Commissioner should have no part in family life, and that the commissioner represents some sort of threat to ordinary families. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has read the NSPCC studies that report the extent of abuse within families. If he was really committed to a Children's Commissioner, he would want that commissioner to be involved with all children.
Ordinary parents should be the greatest advocates for children's rights. As I said in an intervention, ordinary parents should want their children to participate in and get the best deal from society, and should want to see their children upheld as free individuals with rights, to whom duties are owed by them and by institutions outside the family home.
This excellent Bill might be improved during its passage. I should like some alterations to be made, but we should acknowledge that the Government have made a


great deal of progress in a very short time. I want a network of children's rights commissioners, but the Bill lays a huge duty on the people of Wales to make this excellent institution work and to show the rest of the United Kingdom exactly how it can be done.

Mr. Chris Ruane: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to take part in this important debate. I welcome the appointment of a Children's Commissioner for Wales and I am proud of the fact that Wales is the first of the home countries in the United Kingdom to appoint such a commissioner.
There is great consensus within Wales—I emphasise, within Wales—on the issue of a Children's Commissioner. The voluntary sector, agencies, local authorities and every political party have worked together in the best interests of the children of Wales. It is very disappointing that the consensus has been shattered by the antics of the official Opposition today, here in Westminster, and I know that their Conservative colleagues in Wales share our disappointment at their behaviour and tactics.
I am pleased that the leader of the Conservatives in Wales, Mr. Nick Bourne, has been quoted on PA NewsFile. I read out the quotation in an intervention earlier, when the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), the Opposition spokesman, was out of the Chamber for an extended period, so perhaps I should repeat what the leader of the Conservatives in Wales said when he found out that the Conservatives at Westminster had shattered the consensus:
When I said that there were no differences I was certainly not aware of any difference. Subsequently I found out that there was a difference of emphasis but we are not going to change our position. We are not going to stand on our heads for anybody.
That was quite a principled stand.

Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman has just read out something that purports to come from the leader of the Conservatives in Wales, where we wish to strengthen the powers of the Children's Commissioner. In which way would we be asking anyone to stand on their heads? Indeed, a number of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues have asked for the strengthening of the commissioner's powers. Does he wish those powers to be extended, or does he not?

Mr. Ruane: If your tactics and antics—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman must use correct parliamentary language.

Mr. Ruane: It is the strategy that your party is using—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been a Member of this place for a little while now. He should do a little better than that. I think that "hon. Gentleman" are the two words for which he is looking.

Mr. Ruane: It is the strategy and tactics that the Conservative party is using in Westminster that have upset the hon. Gentleman's colleagues in Cardiff and in every other party in the House.
As a north Wales Member, I remind the House that the impetus for a Children's Commissioner for Wales lies in the north Wales child abuse inquiry, and Mr. Justice Waterhouse's recommendation that such a position should be created in Wales. Something good has come out of something evil. The reign of terror that raged in north Wales for 30 years came to an end. We should welcome the fact that we are to get a Children's Commissioner.
Those who suffered I abuse and those who suffer the after-effects of it may take some solace from the fact that the public, including policy makers and elected representatives in Wales, were so outraged when they heard of the experiences of the young people involved that a groundswell of opinion grew to establish a Children's Commissioner. For some, the news of a commissioner comes too late. I refer to those who committed suicide as a result of their experiences, those who died of drug abuse and those who died of alcohol abuse when they tried to escape the nightmares of their experiences.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that the commissioner has yet to set up offices. I suggest that my right hon. Fried use his position to ask the commissioner to consider north Wales as the location for his offices, in recognition of the role played by the north Wales child abuse inquiry and in tribute to young children, alive or dead, who suffered so terribly in north Wales homes.
The Select Committee on Welsh Affairs published the results of its inquiry into social exclusion in Wales yesterday, in Cardiff. During the inquiry, members of the Committee made a deliberate attempt to listen to the youth of Wales. We visited many projects, including one in my constituency that was set up to look after young schoolgirls who became pregnant. That group is in Rhyl high school in my constituency. We listened to the experiences of the young mothers. We held a meeting for youth from throughout Wales at Chynlleth. Young people spoke with passion on a range of issues. A young lad told us that he had left school at the age of 14, having been bullied by his school mates because he was a homosexual. Others spoke freely and openly about abuse, violence, drugs and alcohol.
At first, the young people were hesitant when six or seven Members sat with them. There were about 50 young people from throughout Wales. We split into different groups and listened to them. They were wary of us because we were besuited and came from Westminster. When they knew that we were prepared to listen—we were not talking at them and we were prepared to act—they realised the importance of the session and opened up. The appointment of a commissioner for Wales stems partly from the response of the young people of Wales. It has been welcomed by many children's groups and by children in Wales. The commissioner's position will be made that much better because of the rapport that he will have with young people in Wales.

Ms Debra Shipley: Does my hon. Friend agree that the children of England could similarly benefit from a commissioner? Does he welcome Lord Laming's examination of systems? We need a national body for the protection of children. We have put the Protection of


Children Act 1999 on the statute book, and Lord Laming was much involved. I welcome his appointment. Will my hon. Friend comment on that?

Mr. Ruane: I, too, would welcome a similar commissioner for England, and for Scotland and Northern Ireland. However, that is not what we are debating. I would welcome commissioners being appointed for the other home countries.
The youth of England and Wales will have the opportunity to articulate their concerns. They will speak of their experiences, and perhaps most importantly they will offer solutions to the problems that have been experienced. A key role for the commissioner will be to ascertain the problems and to listen to young people to find out what they consider the solutions to be.
In the inquiry of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs into social exclusion we took evidence from more than 100 groups throughout Wales over 11 and a half days of visits. A recurrent theme in the evidence that we took from the people whom we spoke to and the groups that we visited was the lack of statistics, or the lack of access to statistics, that could help the groups to fulfil their functions. A key task of the commissioner, as set out in the Bill, will be to use his power to gather information, to collate it and to commission statistics. With that information he will be able to influence policy, instigate inquiries and hold to account elected bodies, quangos and others who deal with children.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan) said that she felt that the commissioner should be able to comment on any matter that affected the children of Wales, whether that be a United Kingdom function or the responsibility of this National Assembly for Wales. I share my hon. Friend's viewpoint.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that the commissioner will have the right to comment on matters that are the responsibility of the UK Government. If I heard him correctly, I think he said that UK Government Departments would be in difficulty if they did not respond to the Children's Commissioner for Wales. However, those Departments may not be in a position to respond to requests for information and statistics from the commissioner.
I shall give some examples from my recent experience. I have tabled many written questions about children over the past eight weeks to gain an insight into some of the problems faced by children in Wales and the UK. I asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department
how many children have been reported as missing in each of the last 20 years.
I was told that the information was not centrally available. I asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State
what estimate he has made of the number of children involved in prostitution in each of the last 20 years.
The Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr a Clarke), replied:
The Home Office does not collect data on the number of children involved in prostitution.
I asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many female pupils were excluded from school because of pregnancy in England

between 1980 to 2000. I was told by the Minister that the information was not held centrally by the Department. I asked
the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many companies were prosecuted for illegally employed children in each of the last 20 years.
The Minister of State told me that limited information was available. Finally, I tabled the following question:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children have been reported as missing in each of the last 20 years.
I received this answer:
Figures are not available to confirm the precise numbers of children reported missing each year …—[Official Report, 11 December 2000; Vol. 359, c. 55–64W.]
Those were requests by an ordinary Back Bencher for information that I thought necessary, but which is not available now and was not available under the previous Government. It is about time these important statistics, which influence policy making, were made available. Their availability would make Ministers' jobs in helping to improve the lot of young people and children much easier.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is in a unique position, as he will be fully aware of best practice on children's issues in Wales and can relate that information to his Cabinet colleagues. He can raise with them issues such as those to which I have just referred, which concern the collection and co-ordination of statistics. Such issues are important in respect of problems such as missing children, child prostitution, child labour and domestic violence involving children.
I do not want to be too critical, but I wonder whether the National Assembly for Wales can give the commissioner any detailed statistics that are requested on its areas of responsibility: education, social services, housing and so on. If United Kingdom Departments and the National Assembly for Wales co-operate fully in supplying the commissioner with the statistics and information that he requires, the task of improving the lives of all children in Wales will be more readily achieved.

Mr. Gareth Thomas: I add my voice to those of other hon. Members who have welcomed the Bill. I share the dismay expressed by many Labour Members at the official Opposition's extraordinary ambivalence to the Bill, which is, from any viewpoint, a genuinely progressive social measure that all reasonable people should accept.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was entirely right to begin his speech by referring to the Bill as an example of the working partnership between the National Assembly for Wales and Parliament. There is a continuing need for a co-ordinated and strategic approach to prevent the widespread and systematic abuse that has occurred in Welsh children's homes and which was only too obvious after the publication of the Waterhouse report. That abuse was, of course, accompanied by a culture of fear that stopped people involved in the system, including victims, speaking out. It deterred them from feeling that they could trust people and tell them what was going on.
It was, therefore, no surprise that one of the main recommendations of the Waterhouse report—the genesis of the Bill and of the campaign for its introduction—


was the creation of an independent role to oversee regulated functions relating to children in care in Wales. Of course, the creation of the office of Children's Commissioner cannot guarantee that abuse will not occur, but I hope that it will enable the creation of proper safeguards and encourage a culture of more openness and greater willingness to listen to children.
I was especially impressed by the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), who said that the Bill represents a sea change in the way in which we regard children and that it involves a recognition of their rights within the wider society. I hope that it will engender a culture of greater willingness to blow the whistle and sure and certain steps and procedures to ensure that that happens. That is why the commissioner's key functions—the monitoring and oversight of complaints and of the whistleblowing procedures established by local authorities and other authorities involved with the care of children—are vital.
I agree with the view expressed by a number of hon. Members that we should guard against regarding the creation and development of the role of the Children's Commissioner as a panacea for all ills. I agree entirely that the briefings that have been submitted to us by charities and non-governmental organisations in Wales are extremely helpful. However, with respect, and as I said in an intervention, I feel that such organisations have been rather too enthusiastic in their wish to extend the role of the commissioner, perhaps unrealistically. I firmly believe that we should stick to the original recommendations of the Waterhouse inquiry. In essence, we should concentrate on children in care and prevent systematic abuse of the sort that occurred in the past.
If the Children's Commissioner is to do his job effectively, he must have a focused role. We should not overburden that role in a counter-productive way. However, I cannot see why the commissioner should be precluded from commenting on the effects upon children of primary legislation. I was pleased that the Secretary of State appeared to accept that there was nothing in the Bill or elsewhere to prevent that from happening. I also see no reason why the commissioner's role should not be extended to allow him to comment on non-devolved matters. I may have misinterpreted what the Secretary of State said but, again, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent that from happening.
Let me add, however, that the commissioner should not supplant the roles of others engaged in policing our society in the widest sense, especially in relation to young offenders and the criminal justice system—let us not forget the important role of Her Majesty's inspectorate of prisons.
We must be aware that there is a restriction on resources, and we must be realistic about what the commissioner can do successfully. Nevertheless, I think we should again consider giving him powers to enter, on occasion, institutions that are under investigation. I am sure that that will be discussed in Committee. I also see no reason why the commissioner should not be able to comment on the decisions of courts and tribunals as they affect children in Wales, in so far as that could be allowed without offending the sub judice principle.
I welcome the Bill. It constitutes a major step forward in the recognition of children's rights, and is a genuinely progressive piece of social legislation.

Mr. Martin Caton: I feel that I should declare a parochial interest. My predecessor, Gareth Wardell, who has already received a tribute this evening, currently chairs Children in Wales, which has received even more tributes for its work in advancing the case for a Children's Commissioner for Wales. Its briefing has been cited in many of today's speeches. I have another parochial interest. The newly appointed commissioner, Mr. Peter Clarke, lives in my constituency, in the fine village of Garnswllt.
Let us disregard the unfortunate terminology of the "reasoned" device presented by the official Opposition. I thought that the speech of the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) was a positive and useful contribution to our debate about the future of a Children's Commissioner.
Like every other speaker, I welcome the Bill, mainly because it will considerably improve Welsh children's access to their rights. I also welcome the added protection that it potentially gives them. Furthermore, I consider it to be a significant milestone on the road to a more decentralised Britain and an empowered Wales within the United Kingdom.
Some in the media and in politics have tried to set up the Welsh tick box in the national census as a significant indicator of the recognition of Wales in the new constitutional settlement after democratic devolution. I think that the Office for National Statistics should have included a Welsh tick box once the Scots had made their decision, but there is no comparison between the tick box issue and this Bill as any measure of where the governance of Wales is going. The Bill is infinitely more important: it represents a positive response by Government in Whitehall and by Parliament at Westminster to what the elected Welsh Assembly tells us it wants, and, more important, what the children of Wales need. The United Kingdom Government are giving a high priority in their eleetoral programme to the call from Cardiff bay and, indeed, from Wales as a whole.
I think that history will eventually acknowledge that the Bill is something of a landmark in the developing relationship between government in Wales and in the United Kingdom as a whole. Given the Bill's importance both for the children of Wales and for our constitutional development, it might be a good idea for hon. Members to take another look at what the Assembly called for, to reconsider whether, and to what extent, we share the Assembly's vision, and to ask ourselves whether the Bill as drafted can fully deliver that vision.
The Assembly voted unanimously to establish a Children's Commissioner for all children in Wales, with the overarching aim of promoting and upholding the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. Assembly Members wanted a commissioner who could consider and make representations on any matter affecting children in Wales. I am quite sure that the Assembly used as a model the type of children's commissioners and ombudsmen that have been created in some other European countries—where commissioners and ombudsmen set their own agenda in championing the


rights of children, monitor and review all aspects of children's lives, maintain direct contact with children and speak up for them and promote throughout society respect for children and for their views.

Mr. Huw Edwards: My hon. Friend is a member of the Welsh Affairs Committee, which recently conducted an inquiry into social exclusion in Wales. When we were conducting an inquiry into child care in Wales, we visited Denmark. Does he agree that, in Denmark, family policy was at the very heart of governmental, social and economic philosophy, seeking to ensure the welfare of children from newborns to 18-year-olds? In Denmark, enshrining rights was a fundamental aspect of the overall political philosophy. With the establishment of a Chilriren's Commissioner, could we not emulate that in Wales?

Mr. Caton: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I completely agree with his comments. He will remember that in Copenhagen the Select Committee visited Denmark's equivalent of the Children's Commissioner and saw the all-embracing role—which my hon. Friend described—that that commissioner performs.
The child's point of view is the foundation of the role played by commissioners in Denmark and in other European countries, who seek to secure the best outcome for children. I wonder whether the Bill, as drafted, will establish that type of commissioner. As has already been mentioned, the Bill concerns many of the charities working with children in Wales. The type of commissioner that the Bill seeks to create seems to be modelled more on parliamentary, he filth service and local government ombudsmen services. Although all those services are extremely valuable, they are really concerned more with administering or monitoring service delivery by different tiers of government or their agencies.
Therefore, although the Bill will extend the commissioner's remit way beyond its current boundaries as established in the Care Standards Act 2000, it still seems to limit the remit to monitoring and reviewing only those matters that have been devolved to the National Assembly for Wales. It seems that the commissioner will not be able to comment properly on non-devolved matters, regardless of how significant those matters might be in the lives of children or young people who are ordinarily resident in Wales.
Although my concerns about those aspects of the Bill were eased by the Secretary of State's speech, I am still worried that the commissioner's proposed remit may be too restrictive. The commissioner himself will have no powers of control. His power will be in reviewing, monitoring, highlighting and exposing, by bringing matters to the attention of the public or appropriate authorities.
I believe that if it will help to take us forward in achieving children's rights and child protection, the commissioner should as a right be able to comment on non-devolved matters, primary legislation or—as hon. Members have said—court decisions. Indeed, when Parliament is considering relevant legislation, why should we as Members of Parliament deny ourselves access to the expert advice of Wales's Children's Commissioner?
Moreover, how will Welsh children who have been told that the Children's Commissioner is their champion understand it if, when they take a problem to the

commissioner, they are told, "Sorry. I think that your grievance is genuine, but I cannot help because it is not included in the Government of Wales Act as a devolved matter."
I hope that the Government will look again at the possibility of redefining the job so that the commissioner can consider and make appropriate representations about any matter affecting children in Wales. Like others who have spoken, I believe that the more specific points that are worrying children's charities should be the subject of more detailed debate in Committee, but it would be useful if my hon. Friend the Minister were to comment on them in his reply to the debate. Some might be best addressed in secondary legislation by the National Assembly; others might be better dealt with in the Bill.
At the moment there is no requirement for the commissioner to maintain direct contact with children, to pay regard to their views and to promote respect for them throughout Welsh society, although from what I know about the way in which the newly appointed commissioner works, he will certainly do that. However, perhaps it would be better to have an exclusive requirement in the legislation to ensure that that approach is maintained.
Several hon. Members have drawn attention to the fact that the Bill makes no mention of the UN convention on the rights of the child. Should the promotion of public awareness of that important convention be part of the commissioner's role?
The Bill gives the commissioner no powers to enter institutions that accommodate children. Should he not have that power? The Bill gives him no ability to review what could be described as sins of omission. He cannot consider the failure of the Assembly or other bodies to exercise any of their functions. Does that need to be addressed?

Mr. Edwards: There are three prisons in Wales and a young offenders institution, which is in my constituency. Although I am not aware of any allegations of abuse involving young people in those institutions, does my hon. Friend agree that an independent Children's Commissioner for Wales should have access if there were any such allegations involving children and that he should be able to intervene in such matters?

Mr. Caton: I agree completely and I hope that, as the Bill proceeds, that will be precisely the role of the commissioner in Wales.
The Bill is a valuable and historic piece of legislation. However, it could be improved by going back to the philosophy that lay behind the National Assembly's original decision and extending the job of the commissioner to provide him with a more wide-ranging remit. If we do not do that, I cannot help but feel that we may have to address the matter again in the not too distant future and to build further on the responsibility of the Children's Commissioner. Let us make sure that we get it right this time.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am delighted to have caught your eye in this important debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Listening to some Labour Members, one would think that Conservative Members were not


concerned about the nurture and well-being of children. It is absolutely ludicrous for anyone to suggest that any right hon. or hon. Member is not to the nth degree concerned with the welfare of children.
I think that it is quite wrong for the Government to introduce such a Bill only for Wales and not to extend it to the rest of the United Kingdom. That is not just my view. The NSPCC, no less, believes that it is ludicrous for the Government
to allow children a statutory companion in one part of the United Kingdom, but to deny similar protection to the rest. The NSPCC believes the needs of children do not differ significantly across the United Kingdom and similar posts must be created in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
That was the main tenor of my intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson).
It is quite wrong that the Bill should be devoted solely to Wales. It is the only Bill this Session that is being introduced solely for Wales, and that is quite wrong. Indeed, the Government's Care Standards Act 2000 made provision for a children's rights director for England. The role of the commissioner for Wales is purely to safeguard and promote the rights and welfare of children "ordinarily resident in Wales". No doubt, the Bill's Standing Committee will want to examine closely the meaning of that phrase.
The measure gives rise to a load of conundrums on the protection of Welsh children. We all know of tragic accidents that have occurred when children have been on school trips—for example, canoeing on rivers or sailing at sea. Let us suppose that a group of children from Wales undertook such a venture jointly with English children, organised solely by an English agency, and a tragedy occurred. Would the Children's Commissioner for Wales have a remit in that situation? I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Wales will be able to say something about such conundrums when he sums up the debate.

Mr. Hayes: Earlier in the debate, I received some agreement from Labour Members when I repeatedly made the point that the precise scope of the commissioner's responsibilities has yet to be clarified—I will not say that it is ill-defined. For example, a child may have one Welsh and one English parent; the parents may be separated and live close to the border, so the child spends time in England and in Wales. We need much greater clarity about the commissioner's responsibilities in such situations.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, but I do not want to continue in that vein. The message is clear. If the Bill covered England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, such conundrums would not exist. I have no doubt that, when we are returned to power after the next general election—[Interruption.]—we shall address that problem and we shall extend the powers of the Bill to England, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Mr. Hayes: rose—

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will my hon. Friend allow me to continue for a few moments? I want to develop an important theme, but I assure him that I will give way to him.
My right hon. and hon. Friends were right to table the reasoned amendment because there is a serious problem with the Bill. We all want increased powers for the commissioner to deal with children in care; we can all think of terrible examples of the abuse of such children. Labour Members may scoff at some of my remarks, but I had the misfortune to be in an area where there was one of the worst cases of child abuse in the history of this country—that of Fred and Rosemary West. A dozen or more children endured terrible torture and mutilation, after which many of them were killed.
I have spoken at length to the authorities in Gloucestershire. My remarks do not apply in any way to the present employees of Gloucestershire social services or to any other agencies in the county because those events mainly took place in the 1970s and 1980s. However, in private, they all agree that at that time—as a little rural authority—Gloucestershire was not equipped to deal with that scale of child abuse.
If a children's commissioner had been in place at that time, he would have been able to disseminate best practice throughout the United Kingdom and would have required its adoption by ever local authority. If Gloucestershire had exercised best practice at that time, those terrible abuses would not have a happened and some of the children who suffered and were killed would be alive today.
Our purpose is to look after the interests of our constituents. I never want such abuse to happen again to any of my constituents or to those of any hon. Member, so I think that it is shocking that, tomorrow, the Government are allowing an entire day's debate on foxhunting while children in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland ire unprotected. That is quite unacceptable and the Government should consider the matter carefully.

Mr. Hayes: Does my hon. Friend agree that that is an inevitable consequence of considering the component parts of the United kingdom separately, as a result of the Government's unbalanced constitutional reform? I do not want to over-dramatise, but if the price of that is the consequences that he has described, I fear—although in electoral terms, fear is perhaps not the right word to use—that the people of Britain will judge the Government harshly.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend is right. Not only on that issue but on a number of others, the people of Britain—in not many weeks' time, I suspect—will judge the Government on what they have achieved for this country. The people have paid the tax, but they are not getting the service that goes with it.

Mr. Hayes: I have heard that somewhere before.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend must have seen some advertisements around the place; I cannot imagine where.

Mr. Edwards: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a minute, although I am not sure whether he has been present throughout proceedings on the Bill.


[HON. MEMBERS: "Neither have you."] That is true, but I had urgent business in Committee, and it is impossible to be in two places at once.

Mr. Edwards: rose—

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I will give way in a minute, when I have developed this part of my speech.
I have another concern about the Bill, which I know is also central to the concerns of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench; it is another reason why our reasoned amendment was moved today. We welcome increased powers for the Children's Commissioner over children in care, but we are worried by the fact that his role is so wide, because we do not wish him to supplant the natural role of parents.
It is natural that parents should have differing views on how to bring children up. That is part of the culture of tolerance, liberation and freedom in this country. Provided that parents do not break the law, we accept the idea that there will be different emphases. We may not always agree with the way in which some parents bring up their children. Indeed, there is a distinct argument to be had about that. Some of the parents of the so-called enlightened 1960s are very deficient in the way in which they have brought up their children. That is a different issue, however. Within the law, parents have the right to bring up their children in different ways.
It would be unacceptable to my hon. Friends on the Front Bench and me if the commissioner started to supplant the role of parents and interfere with the natural bonds within a close family.

Mr. Edwards: I think that I was following the hon. Gentleman's argument when he suggested that if there had been a commissioner in England, the rights of children might have been safeguarded— even, perhaps, in Gloucestershire. Will he therefore tell us whether his party went into the general election committed to having a commissioner for England and Wales, and whether it will go into the next general election committed to having a commissioner for England?

Mr. Clifton-Brown: If the hon. Gentleman had been listening carefully to my speech, instead of chatting to his hon. Friends, he would have heard me say that I personally was strongly in favour of a Children's Commissioner for England— but with the remit and role that I have described.

Mr. Edwards: What about your party?

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I have no idea, and I am not in a position to commit my party. I am not on the Front Bench for this subject, and I have no remit to speak for my party. However, it is my personal wish—I am sure that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends would say the same—that we should have a Children's Commissioner for the whole United Kingdom. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) is nodding. As I said before, I am certain that after the election, when our party is elected, it will wish to revisit this problem.
I do not like praying in aid the European Court of Human Rights, because I do not like it supplanting the law of this country.
If a Government of whichever colour do something that I believe to be wrong, I shall say so. I believe that the Government are doing something wrong tonight and that children in England deserve the protection provided by the Bill. It may be difficult for the Secretary of State to sign the declaration that the Bill complies with the Human Rights Act 1998 because it will not apply to the whole United Kingdom. I hope that the Government will consider the fact that citizens of England, Scotland or Northern Ireland, who are aggrieved by the fact that their children will not be protected under the Bill, may be able to take their grievance to the European Court of Human Rights, and their cases may succeed.
I want to make another important point. Many of the Government's Bills usually involve a substantial financial cost implication, but I understand that the entire cost of implementing the Bill will be only £300,000. If it will cost only £300,000 to protect the children of Wales, it seems immoral not to implement similar provisions in the whole United Kingdom. I hope that, if the Government are to comply with the long title, they will accede in Committee to the Opposition's request and extend the power to England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I therefore think that, despite what many Labour Members have said, my hon. Friends were right to table the reasoned amendment, which clearly sets out where the Bill's deficiencies lie. There are some major deficiencies, and I hope that the Government will remedy them.

Mr. Robert Walter: We have had a fascinating debate, if only because most Members—certainly, those speaking from the Labour, Liberal Democrat and Plaid Cymru Benches—have criticised the Opposition for tabling a reasoned amendment, but have then supported the thrust of that amendment. I shall deal with those contributions in a moment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) opened the debate for the Conservative party and was consistent and positive in supporting the concept of having a Children's Commissioner. If we go back a few months to the consideration of the Care Standards Act 2000, my colleagues supported the provisions that established the Children's Commissioner for Wales, but we questioned the lack of an equivalent provision for England. Therein lies part of the problem, and our reasoned amendment highlights what we consider to be two defects in the Bill.
The first defect, with which I shall deal in a moment, is the lack of clarity in distinguishing between the rights and responsibilities of parents and those of the Children's Commissioner. The second defect arises from the devolution settlement. Those public bodies in Wales that fall within the scope of the Bill are listed in the schedules. However, the Government of Wales Act 1998 did not create a world in which all child abuse would be carried out only by institutions subject to the supervision of the National Assembly for Wales while those who administer other public bodies would be sanctified and, by statute, become no threat to children's rights. That is clearly nonsense. I refer to those in the immigration service, the Prison Service, the police or the Army cadet force, to name just a few of the many public bodies that operate in Wales but are not covered by the Bill.
Such nonsense would not exist if we had a children's rights commissioner for England and Wales or the whole United Kingdom; or if we were to recognise in this limited


Bill—it is limited to Wales—that public bodies in Wales are devolved and non-devolved and that the commissioner could be responsible not only to the Assembly for its functions, but to the House for non-devolved matters.
We must improve the Bill. Conservatives in Wales and in the House want to do that, and that is entirely consistent with what has been said in the Assembly by Members of all parties who want the commissioner's remit to extend not only to public bodies that fall within the scope of the Assembly but to those that fall within the scope of this House.
We must not lose the plot. The Waterhouse report was about children in care, and the primary responsibility of the Children's Commissioner for Wales must be children in care and children at risk. He has to get that right, and then we can look to him to be a key advocate in all other areas of public administration, whether they fall within the scope of the Assembly or of UK Government Departments.
I turn now to hon. Members' contributions to this fascinating debate. The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) referred to the 20 inquiries and their recommendations, and made an interesting point about case studies of young people in custody in Wales who would fall within the scope of the commissioner. He referred also to young people in custody outside Wales, and questioned whether the commissioner's remit would include them.
The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) failed to understand what lies behind our reasoned amendment and went on to make a speech that seemed to support what we say in the amendment. The hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) referred to a number of tragic cases of children in care.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd) spoke of the Utting report and some of the harrowing cases with which it dealt. He expressed a well-founded and balanced view. He said that we should see how effective existing legislation is before extending it. Unfortunately, we are not in a position to do that today. Under pressure from the Assembly, the Government, having failed to get things right the first time in the Care Standards Act 2000, have used their powers to seek to improve that Act. They have put before us a Bill that we must consider with the aim of making the Children's Commissioner for Wales a more effective vehicle for protecting children's rights.

Mr. Dawson: Given the reasoned amendment and the concerns expressed about the commissioner's involvement within families, is it not specious nonsense for the hon. Gentleman to criticise the Government about the scale of the Bill?

Mr. Walter: Not at all. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I shall refer to his speech in a moment.
We are concerned that the right balance should be struck between the responsibilities of parents and the family and the responsibilities of the Children's Commissioner. We will develop that argument in Committee.
May I return to the contribution of my right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham, who highlighted cross-border problems, which will arise from those functions that have not been devolved? Those problems are why we shall press our amendment to the vote. The hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan) was rather confused about our amendment and divisions in her own party. As I pointed out to her in a n intervention, a National Assembly Committee asked for the creation of a children's commissioner with much greater powers—including powers over non-devolved areas—and talked about negotiating on that with the Government. Clearly, the Assembly failed in those negotiations to get the remit of the commissioner extended to those areas.
The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) traced his support for the post back to 1993, and is to be congratulated on that. He felt that we should not enact the Bill too quickly, without proper scrutiny. We shall talk about proper scrutiny in the following debate on the programme motion, which deals with the Committee stage of the Bill. It is right that, on this occasion, we should make sure that the Children's Commissioner for Wales is vested with the powers that are necessary to carry out the job. This will be the second bite at the cherry, as we try to get it right. We do not want a third bite, which is why we shall scrutinise the Bill in Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Sir R. Whitney) pointed out that the Bill has far too many loose ends. He said that there are inadequacies that we have to correct. He emphasised the fact that we must strike the right balance between the family and the commissioner.
The hon. Member for Conwy (Mrs. Williams) again questioned the commissioner's powers outside Wales. How will the commissioner exert his powers and role on children who are ordinarily resident in Wales but, none the less, are subject to, or are in, care outside the Principality? We shall continue to explore that valid point in Committee.
The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) looked at the extension of powers. He mentioned the United Nations convention on the rights of the child and called for a holistic approach—which, of course, is a typical Liberal Democrat phrase. We are urged to have a holistic approach involving one thing on the one the hand and something else on the other.

Mr. Öpik: For the hon. Gentleman's information, the word holistic was suggested to me by Save the Children.

Mr. Walter: Right. I am sure that phrase will appear in the next Liberal Democrat manifesto.
As for the contribution of the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wynn (Mr. Dawson), his support for the concept of a commissioner is well known and much appreciated in the House. Quite rightly, one of my colleagues asked why, if the measure that we support for Wales is so good, n there not one for England? The hon. Gentleman is about to re-introduce a private Member's Bill, to which the Government could give time; it would extend the provision s of the Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill to England.
The hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Mr. Ruane) rather lost the plot initially but, towards the end of his speech, came back to the basic thrust of his argument. I look forward to him joining us in the Lobby tonight.
The hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) made rather a worthy contribution on the partnership between the Assembly and Parliament. Such a partnership is between the Assembly and all of Parliament, not just the Government. Parliament is here—it represents all shades of opinion throughout the United Kingdom and I believe that if the Assembly is to strike a partnership, it should be a cross-party one. However, the hon. Gentleman made a telling comment about the commissioner having a focused role, which returns us to my point about not letting the commissioner lose the plot. We are discussing primarily children in care and children at risk.
The contribution of the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Caton) was unique in its lack of criticism of our amendment. It dealt with some serious reservations and I look forward to receiving his support in the Lobby.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) made a most useful contribution dealing with the absence of any equivalent post in England. He made a most passionate speech about child abuse in Gloucestershire, and sought a commissioner for England who could deal with those matters.
Members on both sides of the House seemed to think that there was some virtue in displaying manifesto commitments. It was suggested in an intervention that we had no manifesto commitment in 1997 to introduce a Children's Commissioner. The Labour party had no such manifesto commitment either.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would want to be corrected when he is wrong. The Labour party in Wales had a manifesto commitment to introduce a commissioner for Wales.

Mr. Walter: I shall stand corrected if necessary, but I think that the Labour party in Wales had such a commitment in the 1999 Welsh Assembly manifesto, not in the 1997 general election manifesto for Westminster.
The Government, in evidence to the Health Committee in January 1998, said that they were considering the matter as part of a response to the UN committee on compliance with the convention on the rights of the child. The report of the Health Committee, of which I was a member, was more definite. We argued that it was right for the United Kingdom to follow the example of a number of other western countries by creating the post of a children's rights commissioner. We proposed a commissioner who would have the a duty to promote awareness of the rights of the child, highlight ways in which present and proposed policy failed those rights in practice, conduct formal investigations where breaches of children's rights were considered to have taken place, seek to ensure that children had an effective means of redress when their rights were disregarded and carry out and commission research relevant to safeguarding children's rights. The Health Committee concluded:
We recommend that there should be a Children's Rights Commissioner within the UK …
The Conservative party here at Westminster and in Cardiff bay believes that it is appropriate that a Children's Commissioner should look after those children in the care of local authorities and other public bodies. However, we do not believe that the Bill is specific enough about the powers of the commissioner. As a result, we have tabled our reasoned amendment and in Committee will continue to seek to improve the Bill.
The Opposition have specific concerns about protecting the role of the family and of parents. The Bill will give the commissioner a wide remit and, as such, may allow him to supplant the role of the parent. We believe that that would be wrong, and I have already raised that concern with the Government. The Secretary of State will recall that in December I asked him where the dividing line was between the role of the commissioner and of the parent.

Mr. Win Griffiths: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Walter: No. I have only a few minutes because I want to allow the Minister to make his winding-up speech.
The Secretary of State's reply was not reassuring. He said:
I do not believe that there is any dividing line as such … I believe that the appointment does not supplant, but enhances the role of the family …—[Official Report, 13 December 2000; Vol. 359, c. 624.]
We believe that parents should always be given the first opportunity to speak up for their children. We have stated that, and we will oppose any measure that allows the commissioner to intervene unnecessarily in the family unit or take over the role of the parent.
We also have concerns that the role of the commissioner is confused. For example, he has not been given jurisdiction over many areas in which children may come to harm. By contrast, the commissioner has been given a role in schools, where teachers already play a vital part in protecting the welfare of their pupils. The NSPCC in Wales has stated that the Bill falls far short of the Assembly's vision.
The Children's Commissioner is an independent post funded by the National Assembly. However, the legislation makes no provision for the commissioner to be made accountable to Parliament. We believe in an effective Children's Commissioner: a commissioner who does not supplant the parent's role and who has the confidence of parents, whose role extends to all public bodies, and whose role could apply equally in England as it does in Wales.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hanson): We have had an interesting and considered debate, and Members have expressed strong views. It has also been a thoughtful debate. I am replying to the debate not only as a Minister, but as a north Wales Member of Parliament, some of whose constituents have suffered child abuse or have been involved in the north Wales child abuse scandal. Like my hon. Friends from north Wales, I recognise the original concerns that caused the Waterhouse report to be commissioned by the current leader of the Conservative party, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), and I give him credit for that.
I have listened to the debate, and I shall certainly read the report tomorrow. I hope that we will shortly have a useful discussion in Committee on some of the issues that have been raised. However, I shall try to respond to some of the key points. Most of the comments made, even those made by Opposition Front Benchers, show that the Bill is


widely welcomed in the House, so I regret the Conservative party's reasoned amendment. I shall touch on it briefly, because it is important to consider the issues.
The amendment says:
That this House declines to give a Second reading to the Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill.
I recognise what the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) and other right hon. and hon. Members have said, but the amendment says something about the condition of today's Conservative party, which is willing to oppose this measure. Let us make no mistake: if I were to invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to join the hon. Member for Ribble Valley in the Lobby to vote for his reasoned amendment, there would be no Committee stage, because there would be no Bill as the House would have declined to give it a Second Reading.
With due respect to the hon. Member for Wycombe (Sir R. Whitney) and the right hon. Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd), it is a sad exposé of the state of the Conservative party that it fell to the Opposition Whip, the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), to be the only Conservative Back Bencher to speak in support of his Front-Bench team. That says something about the state of the Conservative party.

Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman knows that we tabled our reasoned amendment because we want the Bill to be strengthened. Like some Labour Members and Members of other Opposition parties, we want the powers of the Children's Commissioner to be strengthened and replicated in England when the Bill goes into Committee—as it will. The reasoned amendment has given us the opportunity to put that proposition.

Mr. Hanson: When the hon. Gentleman wakes up in the morning and reads the headlines in the papers, and when he sees what the Conservative party in Wales has said about his amendment, he will, on reflection, recognise that he has made a catastrophic error. If I invited my right hon. and hon. Friends to join him in the Lobby, there would be no Bill. He knows it, and I know it.
Whatever the hon. Gentleman has said—I accept the spirit in which he said it—the fact of the matter is that his amendment states:
That this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Has my hon. Friend received any indication, perhaps through the usual channels, that the official Opposition will not press to a vote the amendment that they say they do not agree with?

Mr. Hanson: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I was going to plead with the hon. Member for Ribble Valley to withdraw the amendment because we will certainly discuss the issues that it raises in Committee. He knows we can do that, and it would allow us to progress on the basis of having a consensus on children in Wales so that we secure a better deal for them. I invite him to

consider that. The shadow Leader of the House is present. Perhaps he could talk to her and the Chief Whip about not pushing the amendment to a vote.

Mr. Evans: Is the Minister saying that the Bill is deficient and that our reasoned amendment to extend the powers of the Children's Commissioner in Wales is right?

Mr. Hanson: It would be a strange Minister who supported a Bill that he believed to be deficient. The issues that have been raised can be considered and discussed in Committee, but the amendment declines to give the Bill a Second Reading. The leader of the Conservative party in the National Assembly for Wales has said that the amendment appals him.
However, let us move on. The hon. Gentleman has had an opportunity to withdraw the amendment, but instead he will ask his hon. Friends to vote for it. We will see how many of them agree with it and I shall look at the Division list tomorrow to see whether the right hon. Member for Fareham and the hon. Member for Wycombe joined him in the Division Lobby.
The Bill is a superb example of devolution working at its best.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hanson: No, we have to make progress.
Many hon. Members who represent Welsh constituencies made fine contributions. They supported the establishment of the Children's Commissioner and the extension of his remit. I, like my hon. Friends the Members for Vale of Clwyd (Mr. Ruane), for Conwy (Mrs. Williams), for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones), for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) and for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan) and the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey), have praised the voluntary sector for its contribution to the Bill.
The Bill will give effect to extending the powers of the Children's Commissioner. As my hon. Friends the Members for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) and for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) and the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) said, the Bill's principal aims are to strengthen the exercising of rights by the Children's Commissioner to safeguard and promote the welfare of children.
The Bill will give additional powers to support functions in devolved matters that are covered by the National Assembly. Those are quite extensive and a range of issues, including health and education, will be covered. They are important additions to the commissioner's role. I very much agree with what my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, Central and for Bridgend said: we should consider the issues, not as a panacea for tackling child abuse at the end of the road, but as a way in which to strengthen and support the Bill.
I believe that all hon. Members who spoke welcomed the summary of the Bill's effects on improving the conditions and support for children in Wales and elsewhere. However, some important issues have been raised, which I want to cover in detail.
The key issue—jurisdiction over non-devolved issues—was raised by the hon. Members for Ribble Valley, for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) and


for Brecon and Radnorshire and my hon. Friends the Members for Bridgend and for Gower (Mr. Caton). The commissioner and his office will be part of the Assembly's strategy for listening to children and ensuring that their voices are heard. It is not consistent with the devolution settlement—I hope hon. Members accept this—for the commissioner's jurisdiction to extend to United Kingdom Departments. Although he will be limited to reviewing the exercise of Assembly functions or functions of the public bodies listed in the new schedules, that does not mean that he will be debarred from commenting on other matters, such as youth justice and other issues that hon. Members have raised.
The commissioner will have powers to exercise functions that are incidental to his core functions, and he can bring those to the attention of relevant Departments. There is no question of him being gagged on issues that are outside his jurisdiction. The Bill would not give him substantive functions in non-devolved areas, nor would he have a formal power to review, report or require information. However, I believe strongly that Departments would react positively, given the commissioner's profile, on issues that he brought to the attention of the Government. The commissioner will report to the National Assembly for Wales, so he will be able to comment on non-devolved matters in his report, and the Assembly's framework means that it will be able to make representations about those issues to the Government.
The hon. Members for Brecon and Radnorshire and for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy and my hon. Friends the Members for Clwyd, South, for Gower and for Lancaster and Wyre and many others referred to the commissioner having responsibility under the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. As hon. Members will be aware, the convention is not part of domestic law and I do not consider it appropriate in primary legislation to link the commissioner's principal aim of safeguarding and promoting the rights of children specifically to the convention. However, the Assembly has taken the convention into account in designing the job description and the advertisement for the post and the commissioner will have regard to the UN convention in exercising his functions. Again, we can explore these issues in Committee. Although the convention is not on the face of the Bill, its spirit is reflected by it.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North for the work that she has undertaken in the House to support the establishment of the commissioner. She mentioned the issue of commenting on the decisions of courts and tribunals. Although the commissioner may receive representations about such decisions, it is not appropriate for him to comment on them while the issues are before the courts. Obviously, once a decision has been taken, he has the right and responsibility to bring to the Assembly's attention any issues that he feels are important.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the Minister consider in Committee whether it will be appropriate for the commissioner to assist a child financially when a case is taken to a tribunal and an important point of principle is at stake?

Mr. Hanson: I shall certainly reflect on that point in Committee. The commissioner's budget will be limited—it will be £800,000, which answers a point made by the

right hon. Member for Fareham—and it is within the commissioner's jurisdiction to determine how he spends it on his role and responsibilities.
The right hon. Member for Fareham mentioned primary legislation. It is not within the commissioner's statutory remit to be able to influence and direct primary legislation; that is a matter for the House, which is why I am pleased that the Bill is before us. However, the commissioner will be able to use his judgment about which issues to express his view upon. He will be free to express his view on those issues accordingly, and I hope that the budget of £800,000 will assist him to do that.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North, the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy referred to court cases. The commissioner is not an alternative to the courts, but he has a clear separate role as a children's champion. He will therefore not be able to inquire formally into, or report on, any matter that is the subject of legal proceedings or has been determined by a court or tribunal. However, that will not prevent him from making informal comments on the outcome of court cases or considering such issues.
Interest and concern have been expressed about the commissioner's role for children who live in Wales. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff. North mentioned asylum-seeking children, and the key test is whether children in Wales receive regulated services. An asylum-seeking child who receives such services will fall under the commissioner's scope if he lives in Wales. That is set out in section 78(1) of the Care Standards Act 2000, which is to be amended by this Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Conwy and the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire referred to the commissioner's jurisdiction over services provided in England for children who live in Wales. It is important that we recognise that the Bill relates to services received, so if a person lives in Wales, is sponsored by an authority outside Wales and receives a service from it, he will fall within the commissioner's potential jurisdiction. It is important to consider the context, and we shall have an opportunity to return to all the issues when we debate the Bill in Committee.
Much has been said about support for families. The reasoned amendment invites us to decline to give the Bill a Second Reading for several reasons, one of which is
because it fails to assert the importance of the family in protecting and nurturing children …
The hon. Member for Wycombe was among those who mentioned support for the family. The role of the Children's Commissioner is not incompatible with support for the family. People involved in families, sadly, occasionally commit abuse, and abuse may be rife in certain families. It is not incompatible to have a Children's Commissioner who examines regulated services as well as family issues.
It is strange to be asked to decline to give a Second Reading to the Bill because of its lack of support for the family, when the Government have introduced the working families tax credit, given record increases in child benefit, extended maternity leave and introduced the right to parental leave and the new children's tax credit. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley—in addition to making a big mistake in declining to give a Second Reading to the Bill—has also failed to recognise the support that the Government have given to the family. The welcome that the measure has


had from Children in Wales, the NSPCC and a range of children's voluntary organisations illustrates their support for the Government's proposals.
My hon. Friend the Member for Conwy asked whether we could extend the scope of the Bill to cover adults with severe learning disabilities. I recognise her concerns, her circumstances and those of many of our constituents. It would not be appropriate for the commissioner to concentrate on adults with learning disabilities because he will be a children's and young person's commissioner. However, he will be able to consider how such individuals need to be protected when they are children, and what steps need to be taken to support their progress to adult life.
The possibility of a children's commissioner for England was raised by a number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre and the hon. Member for Cotswold, who again found himself the only hon. Member speaking in support of his Front Bench. The Bill illustrates the success of devolution, and the whole point of devolution is that different parts of the United Kingdom should be able to find solutions to their own problems.
The National Assembly has worked up detailed proposals for the Children's Commissioner, and I pay tribute to Jane Hutt and her team in the Assembly, including the many officials who have worked on them. The Commissioner will undertake the task of listening to children, promoting their interests and ensuring that they have a voice for their grievances. The Bill fulfils a Labour manifesto commitment made during the Assembly elections of 1999.
I recognise the concerns that have been expressed about the lack of a children's commissioner in England and Scotland. The Government will consider carefully the Welsh experience before deciding whether having a commissioner for children in England would add value.
The hon. Member for Ribble Valley had the cheek to raise those issues, because I do not recall the Conservatives introducing proposals for a Children's Commissioner once in all their 18 years. In fact, during the passage of a Bill in 1993 the Conservatives voted down a Labour amendment to introduce children's commissioners in Wales, so let us not have the cant and hypocrisy of the hon. Member for Ribble Valley saying, "We would have done it." They did not do so when they had the opportunity.
The Bill offers an opportunity to ensure that the lessons of Waterhouse are learned, that we protect children and young people in the future and that we introduce in Wales a positive model for child protection. I have lived with the north Wales child abuse inquiry in constituency terms, and seen the effects of it. We are doing all that we can to support the commissioner. I ask the hon. Member for Ribble Valley not to press the amendment to a vote, and not to vote against the Bill. I ask him to support the Government.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby.

The House having divided: Ayes 139, Noes 339.

Division No. 57]
[11.2 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Butler, Mrs Christine


Ainger, Nick
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Allan, Richard
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Allen, Graham
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary



Ashton, Joe
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Bailey, Adrian
Cann, Jamie


Banks, Tony
Caplin, Ivor


Barron, Kevin
Caton, Martin


Battle, John
Cawsey, Ian


Bayley, Hugh
Chaytor, David


Begg, Miss Anne
Clapham, Michael


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)



Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Berry, Roger



Best, Harold
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Betts, Clive
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Blackman, Liz
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Clelland, David


Borrow, David
Clwyd, Ann


Bradshaw, Ben
Coffey, Ms Ann


Breed, Colin
Cohen, Harry


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Coleman, Iain


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Colman, Tony


Browne, Desmond
Corbett, Robin


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Cotter, Brian


Buck, Ms Karen
Cousins, Jim


Burstow, Paul
Cox, Tom






Cranston, Ross
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)



Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Cummings, John
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Davidson, Ian
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Joyce, Eric


Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)



Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)



Dawson, Hilton
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Dean, Mrs Janet
Kidney, David


Denham, John
Kilfoyle, Peter


Dismore, Andrew
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Dobbin, Jim
Kirkwood, Archy


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Donohoe, Brian H
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Doran, Frank
Lammy, David


Drew, David
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)



Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Lepper, David



Edwards, Huw
Levitt, Tom


Efford, Clive
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Ennis, Jeff
Livsey, Richard


Etherington, Bill
Llwyd, Elfyn


Fearn, Ronnie
Lock, David


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Love, Andrew


Flynn, Paul
McAvoy, Thomas


Follett, Barbara
McCabe, Steve


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)


Foster, Don (Bath)



Foulkes, George
McDonagh, Siobhain


Gardiner, Barry
Macdonald, Calum


George, Andrew (St Ives)
McDonnell, John


George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)
McFall, John


Gerrard, Neil
Mackinlay, Andrew


Gibson, Dr Ian
McNamara, Kevin


Gidley, Sandra
McNulty, Tony


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
MacShane, Denis


Godsiff, Roger
Mactaggart, Fiona


Goggins, Paul
McWalter, Tony


Golding, Mrs Llin
Mallaber, Judy


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Martlew, Eric


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Maxton, John


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Hancock, Mike
Merron, Gillian


Hanson, David
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Harris, Dr Evan
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Harvey, Nick
Mitchell, Austin


Healey, John
Moffatt, Laura


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hendrick, Mark
Moore, Michael


Hepburn, Stephen
Moran, Ms Margaret


Heppell, John
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hesford, Stephen



Hill, Keith



Hinchliffe, David
Mountford, Kali


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Mudie, George


Hoey, Kate
Mullin, Chris


Hood, Jimmy
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Hope, Phil
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Hopkins, Kelvin
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)
Norris, Dan


Howells, Dr Kim
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Hughes, Ms Bevertey (Stretford)
O'Hara, Eddie


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Öpik, Lembit


Humble, Mrs Joan
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Hurst, Alan
Pearson, Ian


Hutton, John
Pickthall, Colin


Iddon, Dr Brian
Pike, Peter L


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Plaskitt, James


Jamieson, David
Pollard, Kerry


Jenkins, Brian
Pond, Chris





Pope, Greg
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Pound, Stephen



Powell, Sir Raymond
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Primarolo, Dawn
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Purchase, Ken
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Raynsford, Nick
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Rendel, David
Timms, Stephen


Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)
Tipping, Paddy



Todd, Mark


Rogers, Allan
Tonge, Dr Jenny



Rooney, Terry
Touhig, Don


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Roy, Frank
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Ruane, Chris
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Ryan, Ms Joan
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Salter, Martin
Tyler, Paul


Sanders, Adrian
Tynan, Bill


Savidge, Malcolm
Walley, Ms Joan


Sedgemore, Brian
Wareing, Robert N


Shaw, Jonathan
Watts, David


Sheerman, Barry
Webb, Steve


Shipley, Ms Debra
Welsh, Andrew


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
White, Brian


Singh, Marsha
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Skinner, Dennis
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Willis, Phil


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Winnick, David


Squire, Ms Rachel
Woodward, Shaun


Steinberg, Gerry
Woolas, Phil


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Worthington, Tony


Stinchcombe, Paul
Wray, James


Stoate, Dr Howard
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Stringer, Graham



Stuart, Ms Gisela
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stunell, Andrew
Mr. Robert Ainsworth and


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Mr. Jim Dowd.


NOES


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Beggs, Roy
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Bercow, John
Loughton, Tim


Blunt, Crispin
Luff, Peter


Boswell, Tim
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Brady, Graham
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
McLoughlin, Patrick


Cash, William
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Chope, Christopher
May, Mrs Theresa


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Nicholls, Patrick



O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)



Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Collins, Tim
Ruffley, David


Cran, James
St Aubyn, Nick


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Shepherd, Richard


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Day, Stephen
Soames, Nicholas


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Evans, Nigel
Spicer, Sir Michael


Fabricant, Michael
Spring, Richard


Flight Howard
Steen, Anthony


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Swayne, Desmond


Gill, Christopher
Syms, Robert


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Green, Damian
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)



Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Grieve, Dominic
Taylor, Sir Teddy



Hammond, Philip
Thompson, William


Hayes, John
Townend, John


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Trend, Michael


Leigh, Edward
Tyrie, Andrew






Walter, Robert
Wilshire David


Waterson, Nigel
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Whitney, Sir Raymond
Tellers for the Noes:


Whittingdale, John
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown


Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann
and


Wilkinson, John
Mr. James Gray.

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 62 (Amendment on second or third reading), and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Orders of the Day — Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill (Programme)

Mr. Hanson: I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill:—

Standing Committee

1. The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.
2. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 1st February.
3. The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it shall meet.

This is an important Bill for Wales, and we have had a full debate on it. It contains wide-ranging powers to promote the interests and welfare of children in Wales.

Mr. David Wilshire: I note the date on which proceedings in the Committee must finish. When does the Minister expect its first sitting to take place?

Mr. Hanson: I understand that we hope it will take place early next week.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman's interest, given that we have engaged in a seven-hour debate on the Bill for which he was not present. Let us put that aside for a moment, however.
As I have said, the Bill is important. It gives the Welsh Assembly powers, and it is the first Bill relating exclusively to Wales since the House of Commons passed devolution legislation. Our wide-ranging debate tonight recognised those facts.
The motion proposes that the Committee stage conclude on 1 February. I think that that allows plenty of time for discussion of the Bill, which contains only eight clauses and one schedule. It involves important points of principle, which have been discussed to some extent today. No doubt Members will be keen to discuss them further during later stages of the Bill's passage.
I think that the motion allows enough time for detailed debate on the clauses. I anticipate the possibility of five sittings, but the motion allows time for more if they are needed. That is a matter for the Opposition.
Today's debate has given us a flavour of some of the key subjects for debate, which I know will be discussed in detail in Committee. One of the main advantages of timetabling is that it allows us to concentrate on important issues. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr. Evans: I am sure that it will not go unnoticed that, having failed to make our reasoned amendment, we give the Bill our full support. However, we shall seek in Committee to amend the Bill along the lines of our reasoned amendment. In his reply to the previous debate, and after listening to concerns expressed by Labour and by Conservative and other Opposition Members, the Under-Secretary of State for Wales said that he would carefully consider the amendments that we are proposing. [Interruption.] We shall have a chance to debate those amendments in Committee.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There are so many private conversations in the Chamber that it is unfair to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Evans: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is significant that the Under-Secretary admitted that he felt that the pleas made in the debate by various right hon. and hon. Members should be carefully considered and debated in Committee. I look forward to that Committee.

Mr. John Bercow: Can my hon. Friend tell us how many sittings he understands it is proposed that the Committee shall have in considering the Bill's relatively few clauses? Is he aware how many hours it is proposed should be allocated for consideration of the Bill? If so, will he divulge the details?

Mr. Evans: In initial discussions, it was said that there might be four or five sittings. However, as we have just heard from the Under-Secretary, there might be more sittings, depending on the number of amendments tabled. It is unclear how many hours we shall have at our disposal to amend the Bill. However, as the motion states, the Committee's consideration of the Bill should be concluded no later than Thursday 1 February.
As Labour Members know, the Opposition do not agree with programming or guillotining Standing Committees' consideration of Bills. We therefore oppose the motion on that basis alone. We are opposed also to the very fact that discussions on programming the Committee's consideration will be held in a hybrid Committee that deliberates in private and without a record of votes or proceedings. It was the Government who talked about transparency and wanted transparency of government; yet they want to conduct such proceedings in a Committee that they themselves created.

Mr. Graham Brady: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Given that, as I understand it, no minutes will be taken of the Programming Sub-Committee's sittings, would it be open to any hon. Member serving on the Standing Committee who happened to be present to take his own minutes and publish them after the event?

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is a private meeting of a Select Committee, and Select Committee procedure applies.

Mr. Evans: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. Does that mean—I seek your clarification—that any hon. Member may attend the sittings?

Mr. Speaker: That is the normal practice of Select Committees, and, as I said, Select Committee procedure applies.

Mr. Edward Leigh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have been a member of various Select Committees, and I know that transcripts are made of Select Committee proceedings. Would it not help our proceedings if transcripts were made of the proceedings in question, so that we can discover precisely what happened?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is asking questions that he could be asking the Minister in the debate. Perhaps he should not pursue the matter now, as that is taking us beyond the scope of the debate.

Mr. Evans: I am extremely grateful, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Leigh: Does my hon. Friend agree that we could take these matters forward slightly if we had a proper

transcript? At least then we would know what had happened? Do the official Opposition agree that we should have a transcript of those meetings?

Mr. Evans: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. I was just about to make the plea that those meetings should be open. If the Government insist that they are private meetings, there should not only be a transcript so that there are no interpretations afterwards, but a record of any votes. I ask the Government to think very carefully before implementing this programming motion.

Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again. Is he aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) was not just wallowing in metaphysical abstraction, but making a profoundly relevant and concrete point? In that context, is my hon. Friend aware that the reason it is so relevant and concrete is that only last week, as a result of the absence of a voting account or even the published minutes of the Programming Sub-Committee, the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), and I subsequently had a great argument about what had or had not been said. Neither of us could be proved right or wrong precisely because of a lacuna in the proceedings.

Mr. Evans: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right to make that point. If there were transcripts of the meetings, all hon. Members could read the deliberations and find out how the Programming Sub-Committee had decided how many minutes should be allocated to debating each clause and amendment. As in all such matters, there are leaks and two members of the Committee might produce different versions of why it had reached a procedural decision.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: Is there any need for such minutes? The Government constantly told us that it was up to the Opposition to decide what was debated, when and for how long. That was the advantage of the new procedure for us. We do not need to know what they would say had taken place; we need merely to publish our version as, according to them, that is what will count.

Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend knows that there is such a thing as spinning, and the Government have been doing it all evening. They have been spinning the procedure on the Bill from start to finish, and no doubt that will continue in the Sub-Committee. They could produce a different interpretation of what they heard in the sub-committee. It might be a genuine misinterpretation or it might simply be spin, which unfortunately happens too often in this place.

Mr. Wilshire: I have been listening carefully to my hon. Friend and I understand why he is concerned that we should have some details of what is decided. If I understand him correctly—perhaps he will put me right if I am not following his argument—we are being invited to vote on a programming motion, but the details will be worked out subsequently. Is that what he is saying? If so, how can he give the Opposition any guidance from the Front Bench on whether the Government are being


sensible, or whether, as usual, they are trying to shuffle things out of here and work out afterwards and behind closed doors what suits them? Is he telling me that I am being asked to vote for an almost corrupt way of doing things? Is that what he is asking me to do?

Mr. Evans: I certainly would not ask my hon. Friend to do anything of that sort. He is right to say that we do not know, because when the motion has been approved the matter will go to a closed Committee on Thursday, with no record of proceedings or votes.
The Government Whip is listening attentively. He will be in the Programming Sub-Committee, but I will not know what has been said if I am not there. How can we support the motion when we do not know how much time will be allocated? Various issues were raised on Second Reading, and right hon. and hon. Members may want to discuss them at length in Committee. We are being asked to give the Programming Sub-Committee a blank cheque to decide in secret how much time is allotted to a very important Bill that has our full support.
Why cannot the sitting be open, so that everyone can hear what is said by Government and Opposition Members and fully understand our positions? Many children's charities are interested in the Bill and have already made representations to us. They may be horrified to find that important matters have been allotted only a short time for consideration. That is wholly wrong. Let us have transparency and allow the charities to make up their own minds about who is giving fair consideration to the Bill.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: My hon. Friend has made a powerful point about charities. Does he agree that charities will think it extraordinary that the very party that pressed, both in opposition and in government, for freedom of information legislation is now saying that it wants closed government, concealed from the public and from those who are interested in this very worthwhile Bill?

Mr. Evans: Of course. This is not freedom of information, it is freedom for the Government to do what they want and railroad through the legislation in a carefully scheduled and timetabled way, with scant regard for the proper scrutiny that we are here to give.
To be an effective Opposition, we need sufficient time to scrutinise the legislation properly and consider the suggestions that the children's charities have carefully worked out. Several Government Back Benchers spoke about some of those suggestions. If we do not have enough time to scrutinise amendments, the resulting legislation may be deficient and we will not have done our job properly.
Several children's charities have made representations to us on the matter. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) spoke passionately during the Second Reading debate; he will want to table amendments—like him, we share some of the concerns expressed by the charities. He said that he wants the measure to be enacted as soon as possible—as do we.
Of course, we know that there is pressure on Government time; they may want to call a general election—the sooner the better for us; we welcome the

election as soon as possible. We do not know whether the general election will be called in April, in May or even later. We know that the Government could continue until next year, but it is unlikely that they will want to do so because wheels are failing off their bandwagon and, every week, something new turns up. They will want to go to the polls as quickly as they can.
That limits the time for our discussion of this legislation. If the Government could indicate when the general election will be held—I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Wales is privy to regular discussions on such matters with the Prime Minister—we could more carefully arrange the timetable ourselves so as to ensure that the Bill is passed; we want it to become an Act.
The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy said that he did not want the Bill to proceed with undue haste. I agree. We do not want a quick, shoddy measure that will not do the job that we intend for it. We want an effective measure under which the Children's Commissioner will have the powers that he deems necessary to do a good job in Wales. We all want that, so we must make certain that, in the time allotted for examination of the Bill in Committee, we give due and proper consideration to the amendments that we table.

Mr. Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend agree that, whatever the date of the general election—even if it were as early as 1 April, if that is a Thursday—to conclude the proceedings of the Standing Committee by Thursday 1 February would be extremely fast? Even if the Standing Committee were to conclude a month later than that, on 1 March, it would still be possible for Third Reading before the end of March, so the measure would still become law before a general election.

Mr. Evans: Part of the problem is the imposition of artificial dates and the pushing through of amendments not only from the Conservatives and other Opposition parties—so—called Opposition, in the case of the Liberal Democrat party—but from Labour Members. We have heard impassioned pleas for the extension of the powers of the Children's Commissioner beyond the remit of the Welsh Assembly, for example.
The NSPCC has issued a parliamentary briefing in which it welcomes
the introduction of the Bill to allow a Children's Commissioner for Wales. NSPCC believes that the Bill could be significantly improved by a series of uncontroversial amendments. These amendments would assist the Commissioner to put the interests of children first, and act across all policy areas to ensure the best possible outcomes for children.
I agree with the NSPCC; the amendments are uncontroversial. However, part of what the NSPCC asks for is included in our reasoned amendment, to which the Government took umbrage. How can we accept that the Government will agree to the uncontroversial amendments, in which we and some Government Back Benchers believe, without proper argument from members of that Committee?

Mr. Crispin Blunt: My hon. Friend's remarks have been predicated on the fact that only the Government and Opposition Front Benchers will want to contribute to the Committee. Under the timetable that we are discussing, there is no excuse for Government Back


Benchers not to undertake their duty as Members of this place and to contribute to the debate on exactly the same basis as members of the Committee. They will, of course, form a majority, and time should be allowed for them to make a proper contribution, based on all the points that they wish to make.

Mr. Evans: I shall have more discussions, such as those that I had today, with a number of children's charities, and I know that those charities will also talk to Government Members. That is what Standing Committees are all about; indeed, it is what Parliament is all about—holding the Executive to account. Guillotines are always thought of as ways of shutting up Opposition Members, but they also restrict the contributions that Government Members can make on important legislation and on issues that affect their constituencies.
That worries me. Effective Back Benchers do not necessarily have to be members of the Opposition; they simply need a mind, a heart, passion, and to believe in something. The fact that they happen to sit on the Government side does not mean that they must check in their brains before they come in through the arch, have nothing to say, sit compliantly behind and nod at whatever the Minister happens to say.
There is a great onus on Government Back Benchers to pay careful attention to what their Government are doing. We have only to consider the arithmetic of this place to know that if the Government want to force things through, they will get their majority. To change the Government's mind, we need Government Bask Benchers with backbone, to stand up and march through the Lobby with us. We need them to have the time to listen to the representations by pressure groups outside and to present those arguments to Ministers. In Committee, Ministers, too, need the opportunity and the time to respond to the amendments that those Back Benchers table.
If there is an allotted amount of time, and someone tables an amendment on incorporating the United Nations convention on the rights of the child in the Bill, how do we know how much time will be given to that aspect of the legislation? We know that the National Assembly for Wales wanted the convention to be duly recognised in the Bill, and several Government Members mentioned it on Second Reading. The official Opposition will want to test the Government on the subject, too. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy has mentioned the UN convention, as have the Liberal Democrats. The entire House is as one on the matter—apart from Ministers, who say that they are very cautious about incorporating the convention in the Bill.
How do we know that sufficient time will be given to enable all Members to make their representations to the Minister in Committee, and to allow the Minister to argue cogently why he cannot accept amendments supported by so many Members? The Standing Committee represents the part of our proceedings when the Members who know most about the subject have the opportunity to table amendments, yet we do not know whether the Government will allot sufficient time.

Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend is developing a powerful argument about the legislature's responsibility to hold the Executive to account. However, is he aware that, during approximately 15 hours' debate in the Committee with

which I am currently involved—this is directly relevant to the point that my hon. Friend is making, Madam Deputy Speaker—only one of seven Government Back Benchers has so far made a speech, and a pretty short and ineffectual one at that, and two of them have yet to open their mouths? Is my hon. Friend aware that the Conservative Members who serve on that Committee are still trying to work out whether the Labour Members have absolutely nothing to say, or whether they have something to say but have been instructed in no uncertain terms not to say it?

Mr. Evans: That may well remain a mystery to many hon. Members, although we all have an inkling about exactly how the Government try to squeeze out any independent thought. They welcome the fact that Labour Members say absolutely nothing to interrupt the clear passage of whatever the Government want to happen.
This is an important Bill. Its title suggests that it will affect Wales only, but during its Second Reading we have seen that several cross-border matters are involved. Children who go from Wales to England will not receive the same protection and care, because England has a children's rights director, not a Children's Commissioner with the enhanced powers that the Bill will provide.

Mr. Brady: Does my hon. Friend agree that when this United Kingdom Parliament legislates for Wales. Scotland or Northern Ireland—or, perhaps, for England only—we have a special duty to give proper attention to that legislation; and that, as we do not all come from the particular part of the United Kingdom involved, we should give it more time and pay more attention to ensure that we legislate properly?

Mr. Evans: The Conservative party still believes in a United Kingdom Parliament, representing all the constituent parts of the United Kingdom. I have said that the Bill is important for Wales, but it goes much wider because of the cross-border matters. As I said earlier this evening, several emerging countries may consider our deliberations. They view ours as the mother of Parliaments and they will consider how we pass legislation. The Bill is vital, and emerging democracies that wish to enter the 21st century and to he viewed as civilised may want to create their own children's commissioner.
We have not acted in splendid isolation; we have looked at various examples, such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Germany. [Interruption.] The National Assembly, the Library and those who are interested in the Bill have been looking at the children's commissioners or ombudsmen that have been created throughout the world. So several other countries will look to Britain when we establish our Children's Commissioner.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying rather wide of the motion.

Mr. Evans: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for saying that, but I am trying to say—perhaps badly—that we must ensure that there is sufficient time in Committee to debate the Bill, not only because we want to get it right, but because it will have an impact far beyond Wales and this country, given that other democracies will consider what we have done.

Mr. Swayne: I do not wish to make trouble for my hon. Friend, but I may have become confused. He seems


to be making a powerful argument for the guillotine by suggesting that if we allowed the ordinary Standing Committee procedures to apply, we would draw in the United Nations declaration. He seems to suggest that we can keep it out by pursuing the guillotine. That seems to be a powerful argument for such a guillotine.

Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend, who is sometimes mischievous, is putting an opposing view. I hear his powerful call to be a member of the Committee that considers the Bill, and that request will be carefully considered.
I am not saying that the UN convention has universal support in the House, but a number of Labour Members, Conservative Members and Members of other Opposition parties think that it is a good idea and that the Bill would be enhanced by its incorporation. If my hon. Friend is privileged to be a member of the Committee, he may want to put a counter-argument to some of the suggestions that are made. We must make sure that the arguments of all Members, irrespective of their views, can be fleshed out and worked through in the time allotted to us. The fact that my hon. Friend may be in a minority of one does not make him wrong. I remember that when Margaret Thatcher used to go to Europe, she was often in a minority of one, but that made her all the more right—although that may not necessarily be true of my hon. Friend.

Mr. Brady: My hon. Friend says that my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) sometimes puts an opposing view. My view may be less opposed to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans). When other countries, particularly emerging democracies, are looking at our procedures in the House—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman of my earlier comment. We are straying wide of the motion, which concerns the setting up of a Committee, regardless of what other democracies may or may not do.

Mr. Brady: I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. My point is precisely that. Other democracies, looking at our procedures in the mother of Parliaments, would be disgusted to learn that considerations concerning the setting up of a Committee and the guillotining of its proceedings are held in private and not even minuted. If they were to follow our poor example of having Committees that sit in private, behind closed doors, without their proceedings being minuted—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is a very long intervention.

Mr. Evans: I thank my hon. Friend for that point.
I would say that other countries have a lot to learn about the Bill and about how we are trying to protect the welfare of our children, but they have nothing to learn from the procedures that we have introduced in this place.

Ann Clwyd: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that when the Conservatives were in government

and at the Welsh Office, they covered up the paedophilia that was going on in Wales and in the Welsh Office—officials were involved—and that for all those years they refused to take any action to protect children in Wales? Are they not guilty of total hypocrisy?

Mr. Evans: The hon. Lady knows that I have a lot of respect for her, but I am not exactly certain what she is referring to. The Bill arises from the Waterhouse inquiry, which was set up by the leader of the Conservative party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), when he was Secretary of State for Wales. That is relevant to our discussion.
I have a final plea to make to Ministers. We have a briefing document from a former Member of Parliament, Gareth Wardell, who is highly respected by Members on both sides of the House. He has made several representations on areas of the Bill that he believes could be improved, including the UN convention, which I have already mentioned: areas where the commissioner ought to have direct contact with children; cross-border areas, which are vital; and non-devolved areas. That is only a small number of the areas on which Gareth Wardell and his charity have concerns. As I said, several other children's charities have already made representations, many along similar lines to Mr. Wardell's.
We are asking for an opportunity to debate and discuss those issues properly. Sidelining the whole thing to a Committee in secret so that it can cobble together a systematic guillotining of the Bill would not be in the Bill's best interests. Quite frankly, we would not end up ensuring that the Bill will give Wales the Children's Commissioner that we all seek for it. Will the Government reconsider the way in which they are undertaking the guillotine and give the House time to scrutinise the legislation properly?

Mr. Edward Leigh: I should like to look at this matter from the Government's point of view, and shall try to offer a reasonable argument.
The Government argue that the old Standing Committee procedure did not work. Committees would meet for hundreds of hours, and would spend the first 100 hours on clause 1 and various filibusters. No Government Members, Back Benchers or otherwise, would ever speak and there was not a proper debate. That system did not work very well. I have served on a number of Standing Committees in this Parliament, and in all of them, including those considering big social security Bills, which were highly controversial—indeed, much more so than this Bill—that was not the nature of the debate.
In Committees in this Parliament on which I have served, Conservative Members have not wasted their time in filibustering hour after hour and making pointless speeches on the first clause of a Bill. In fact, we have come to an agreement with the Government early on and had a good debate. The Government have not guillotined any big Bills in Committees on which I have sat. We have had good debates, which, I accept, have lasted for 100 hours. Why not? Surely, the Opposition's purpose is to scrutinise legislation and have a proper debate. However, that was done by agreement.
I do not necessarily accept that the old system never worked and that there was a lot of time wasting. I agree that, in previous Parliaments, Labour Members—not


Conservative Members—decided that they wanted to force a guillotine. They felt that it was politically attractive to be able to go to the general public and say that they had done their job, especially on issues concerning trade union membership and privatisation Bills. They would often spend hour after hour in Committee, debating at inordinate length the early clauses of Bills to ensure that the then Conservative Government were forced to introduce a guillotine.
I did not see the point of that and am not sure what it achieved from Labour Members' point of view, but it was their decision. I do not think that we have been guilty of that on many occasions. However, such behaviour is a decision for the Opposition. In a democracy, the Government have the right to get their Bills through. They have the majority and, eventually, they will get all their Bills through. The previous Conservative Government got all their Bills through; this Government have got all their Bills through.
However, the Opposition have one great right—to debate, determine the timetable to a reasonable extent and pick the areas of debate. All Oppositions have done that. I am trying to look at this from the point of view of the Government, who want to create a new system. I should have thought that one purpose of a new system involved getting rid of one-sided debate in Standing Committee, having a programme motion from the beginning and having an end date clearly in view. Because one has an end date, Government and Opposition Members will want to intervene and give regular speeches. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) made clear, when the new system has worked, it has not resulted in that. There is still a certain reticence on the part of Government Back Benchers, so I am not sure what the new system is designed to achieve.
If Government Back Benchers do not want to speak, that is their decision. Leaving that to one side, if one is going to have such a system, surely it must be based on a certain degree of consensus. The Second Reading debate should be given a day or half a day and the arguments should be listened to. The Government should then consider, during a reasonable delay, how controversial a Bill is and how many amendments are likely to be tabled. The programme motion should then be introduced. The Government should not try to force it through on the same evening as the Second Reading debate.
Time and again last week, we heard entirely formal comments from Ministers and we heard them again today. The Minister is a fair-minded man, but his was not a lengthy speech on a programme motion saying, "Look, we have had the debate, various comments have been made and it is likely to take a couple of months or even six weeks to consider the Bill. I want to proceed on the basis of consensus and I shall listen to both sides of the argument."

Mr. Hanson: The programme motion has been agreed by the Opposition.

Mr. Leigh: I am sorry, but the programme motion has not been agreed by the Opposition and I am sure that we shall vote against it. My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) is shaking his head, so the Minister is wrong. The Opposition have not agreed to a system that locks us into finishing consideration by 1 February. That could not be fair.

Mr. Hanson: rose—

Mr. Leigh: I am trying to be reasonable and I am trying to consider the matter from the Government's point of view.
The Bill is non-controversial. When Mrs. Thatcher called early elections in June 1983 and in 1987, she had the self-confidence to realise that she may have to re-introduce certain Bills. I agree that allowing the Bill to spend perhaps six weeks in Committee may mean that it will fall foul of a general election. Well, bring it back. The Government should base their programme not on a general election, but on what is right. What is the Bill about? Are we trying to introduce good legislation? The Government should try to reach a reasonable agreement with the Opposition so that they can debate those matters fully and reasonably and table amendments.
The Speaker has made a point about Programming Sub-Committees. Are they true Select Committees? I have been a member of several Select Committees, which produce transcripts. Private sittings often deal with non-controversial issues, but when—
It being forty-five minutes after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [7 November], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 280, Noes 67.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Wilshire: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The next debate is about a very serious and important matter. Many hon. Members wish to speak.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is aware of it, but there is another motion to deal with. Is that the matter that is so important?

Mr. Wilshire: Yes. It is an issue about which many hon. Members wish to speak—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the next motion on the Order Paper is not for debate, however important he thinks it is.

CHILDREN'S COMMISSIONER FOR WALES BILL [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)(Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other Act.—[Mr. Touhig]
Question agreed to.

Mr. Leigh: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The next item for debate is the Education

(School Teachers' Pay and Conditions) (No. 4) Order 2000, and it is very important. However, the Order Paper states that the Question will be put
after 1½ hours or at 11.30 pm, whichever is earlier.
It is now 11.18 pm. Given the interest in the matter, how can we have a serious debate in just 12 minutes? Is there any way, under our procedures, that Parliament can do its proper job and hold a serious debate?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Debate on the motion must end at 11.30. I shall consider then whether to use my powers to adjourn the debate, rather than put the Question.

Mr. Bercow: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance as to whether, in the heavily circumscribed period available for debate, it is expected or obligatory that, even if there is not time for Back-Bench contributions, all three Front-Bench contributions will be made and heard.

Madam Deputy Speaker: My answer to an earlier point of order indicates the way in which I intend to conduct the debate.

Mr. Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think it would help the House if you would give your guidance as to whether your judgment will be affected by the length of speeches even in the very brief time available, and whether more than one contribution has been allowed for in that period of time. That would enable, for example, the person who first catches your eye to decide how to structure the debate in order to allow you to make your judgment at the end of the time available.

Madam Deputy Speaker: It would certainly help me make my judgment if we could proceed with the debate.

Orders of the Day — Education

Mr. Phil Willis: I beg to move,
That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Education (School Teachers' Pay and Conditions) (No. 4) Order 2000 (S.I., 2000, No. 3106), dated 21st November 2000, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22nd November, in the last Session of Parliament, be annulled.
As hon. Members who raised points of order made clear, this is a very important issue indeed. It is sad that we are starting to debate such an important issue at twenty minutes past 11 o'clock because we have spent most of the evening waffling about parliamentary business that could have been carried very quickly. If it had been, that would have enabled us to hold a full one and a half hour debate on this issue.

Mr. John Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Mr. Edward Leigh: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Willis: It is very sad indeed—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order. The House must come to order.

Mr. Willis: Performance-related pay is an important issue, which for the last two years has vexed the minds of some 500,000 teachers throughout England and Wales. When they look at the newspapers tomorrow, or at Hansard, and see that, sadly, Members felt it was far more important to play games on the Opposition Benches than to discuss this important issue, they will draw their own conclusion about who has teachers' interests at heart.
We have never had an opportunity in the House to discuss performance-related pay, or indeed the Government's Green Paper, published in December 1998, entitled "Teachers: Meeting the Challenge of Change". That Green Paper contained a series of interesting proposals about the future of the teaching profession—proposals that Members on both sides of the House would have enjoyed debating. There was an important proposal to introduce information and communications technology and to make every teacher in the country ICT-literate. Another proposal was to introduce teaching assistants, who have a crucial role in the education delivery service. The changes to initial teacher training were trailed in that document. It had some profound things to say about the way in which the profession would be organised in this new millennium. Perhaps the most interesting issue, to which the Government have come rather late, is that of professional development of the teaching force. Those were all major issues.

Miss Anne McIntosh: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Willis: Given the time that is available to me, I am not prepared to give way. I apologise for that.
Sadly, two years on, the Green Paper, despite the fact that it has not been debated in the House, will be remembered not for the many excellent initiatives that it

contains, but for the Government's bungled attempts to impose performance-related pay on the teaching profession in England and Wales.

Miss McIntosh: Would the hon. Gentleman allow me?

Mr. Willis: The order that we are considering tonight is the culmination of that bungled and torturous process. Rather than unite the teaching profession around new structures for pay and conditions, the Secretary of State has shown us how it is possible to divide the profession and squander the good will of 500,000 teachers.

Miss McIntosh: Would the hon. Gentleman allow me?

Mr. Willis: In his judgment in the successful court case brought by the National Union of Teachers, Mr. Justice Jackson said that the course adopted by the Secretary of State had bypassed the School Teachers Review Body, Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. He said that if he did not make an order, the court would be allowing contractual provisions to be foisted upon some 400,000 schoolteachers in a manner not authorised by Parliament. That judgment on 14 July last year was a shocking indictment of the way in which the Secretary of State had tried to force through his proposals without debate or proper consideration.

Miss McIntosh: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to intervene?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is clear that the hon. Gentleman is not prepared to give way.

Mr. Willis: Imagine if a Conservative Secretary of State had been so judged in the courts—there would have been outrage among Labour Members.

Mr. Eric Forth: There frequently was.

Mr. Willis: The right hon. Gentleman says that there was, frequently.

Mr. Forth: I was there.

Mr. Willis: Labour Members must recognise that it was a judgment of real significance in terms of the process.

Miss McIntosh: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Willis: Yet even with that judgment ringing in the Secretary of State's ears, he sought to deflect the blame, first by blaming the NUT and then his civil servants for the decisions that were taken. Never did the right hon. Gentleman say after that damning court judgment, "I got it wrong and I apologise to the teaching profession."

Miss McIntosh: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Willis: What nonsense.
In the Department's submission to the court, its timetable for the validation of all assessments was not September 1990 or October, but 28 February 2001. That was the date on which the Government expected the threshold payments to be made available to teachers.

Miss McIntosh: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Willis: There was never any intention of paying teachers earlier than that. The Minister and the Secretary of State castigated the NUT, saying that teachers were prevented from having their payments in September. That was untrue and a dreadful statement for a Secretary of State to make.

Miss McIntosh: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Willis: There was never a threat that the threshold process—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is clear that the hon. Gentleman does not intend to give way. That is entirely at his discretion.

Mr. Forth: Disgraceful.

Madam Deputy Speaker: So is the behaviour in the Chamber.

Mr. Willis: There was never a threat, despite the protestations of the Minister in a Standing Committee, that the entire process would have to be started again. That was never in question. What was at stake was not the threshold criteria per se—

Miss McIntosh: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Willis: The real debate was whether there had been proper consultation on the new arrangements that the Secretary of State was bringing in.

Miss McIntosh: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Willis: The key issue goes to the heart of the debate, and it is the principle—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I ask hon. Members to come to order.

Mr. Willis: The key issue that is at the heart of performance-related pay, the NUT's court judgment and the motion is that even a benign Secretary of State must be subject to the law as it stands. If we surrender that principle and accept that a Secretary of State is beyond the law and can impose on teachers any conditions that he may wish, we are absolutely lost. That was the principle at the heart of the court's decision.
Following the decision, the Secretary of State and Department for Education and Employment officials have consulted the professional associations. Positive dialogue has taken place between the Department for Education and Employment and teachers' unions—
It being half-past Eleven o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER, being of the opinion that, owing to the lateness of the hour at which consideration of the motion was entered upon, the time for debate had not been adequate, interrupted the Business, and the debate stood adjourned till tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order No. 17(2)(Delegated legislation (negative procedure)).

Orders of the Day — DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

PREVENTION AND SUPPRESSION OF TERRORISM

That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Code of Practice on Audio Recording of Interviews) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 18th December, be approved.—[Mr. Betts.]
Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — SITTINGS IN WESTMINSTER HALL

Motion made,
That, following the Order [20th November 2000], Mr. Nicholas Winterton, Mr. John McWilliam, Mr. Barry Jones and Frank Cook be appointed to act as additional Deputy Speakers at sittings in Westminster Hall during this Session.—[Mr. Betts.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Orders of the Day — SELECT COMMITTEES (JOINT MEETINGS)

Motion made,
That, for the current Session of Parliament, Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended as follows:
Line 37, before the word 'European' insert the words 'Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.
Line 46, before the word 'European' insert the words 'Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.
Line 48, at the end insert the words:—
'(4A) notwithstanding paragraphs (2) and (4) above, where more than two committees or sub-committees appointed under this order meet concurrently in accordance with paragraph (4)(e) above, the quorum of each such committee or sub-committee shall be two.'—[Mr. Betts.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made,
That Private Members' Bills shall have precedence over Government business on 2nd and 9th February, 9th, 16th, 23rd and 30th March, 6th and 27th April, 11th and 18th May, 8th and 15th June and 20th July.—[Mr. Betts.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Orders of the Day — Better Government for Older People

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Betts.]

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I am delighted to have the opportunity to raise the important subject of the programme that the Government have set up better to organise government for older people. I am pleased to begin by acknowledging the Government's success and vision in conceiving the series of pilot programmes, which have been in place since 1998. They were held in 28 different areas throughout the United Kingdom. The published evaluation, which was produced in June 2000, clearly demonstrated that they had all made great inroads in and contributions to creative thinking about the way in which central Government, local government, other agencies and non-governmental organisations could take forward policy making and participation by older people in future. I commend the Government on their valuable initiative. We look forward to the outcome that they will announce later this month, after considering the report, which is entitled "All our Futures".
Warwick university did some useful academic work in evaluating the pilot programmes. The unique set of new partnerships that have been set up during the pilot projects is striking. They involve central Government and local government, and also the voluntary sector and some academics. The strategy that emerges from the evaluation of the 28 pilot projects clearly shows that public service improvements can be achieved by involving older people—people who are over 50—more directly by taking more careful note of their views and recognising the value of their contribution more clearly than in the past.
It is instructive to note that the pilot projects did not consider only some of the more traditional aspects that concern those in the elderly category, such as health care, housing, money matters and benefits. They also actively considered better policies on, for example, lifelong learning, transport, leisure and volunteering. I was pleased by the Chancellor's important statement last week about the Government's recognition of the role that volunteers can play in future. I entirely endorse that.
More than 300 organisations were involved in the two-year pilot scheme, and much innovative thinking has gone into their work. Many traditional, watertight Chinese walls and departmental boundaries have constructively been breached. The results show the obvious benefits that accrue from a strategic, United Kingdom-wide approach to the problem. However, as I represent a Scottish constituency, I understand that issues of devolution may be involved for the Scottish Executive and for Wales and Northern Ireland.
As I said, the inter-ministerial group on older people is expected to be able to respond by the end of the month. I am sure that its main recommendations will concern problems such as the need to root out and confront age discrimination, to engage better with older people generally, to improve policy and decision making, to address the requirements of the age groups that we are considering in a sensitive way, and to take an holistic view of the whole area of policy making.
Obviously I do not expect the Minister to make any announcements tonight that would upstage or breach the Government's official response, but I hope he will

consider two or three points that I shall put to him. I intend to make a passing reference to the pilot programme conducted in the town of Hawick—the biggest community in my constituency—and in parts of rural central Berwickshire.
However excellent the pilot schemes have been locally, I think that if the programme is to succeed generally it will require continuing active central Government support. I hope that the Minister will at least be able to confirm that much tonight.
I congratulate the programme director, Martin Shreeve, on excellent Cabinet Office support for the pilots conducted in the borders and elsewhere. That level of commitment, and the role played by central Government, must be sustained and enhanced if the programme is to be rolled out successfully throughout the United Kingdom in the near future.
I suppose that Opposition Members are always saying this to the Government, and Ministers are always saying that things are very difficult because they never have enough money to do everything, but a resource element will be involved in central Government's continuing commitment to the programme. I do not think that it need involve huge amounts of public expenditure, but I do think that a commitment of resources for the continuing future, in the middle to longer term, is essential to a successful national roll-out. The scheme cannot realise its full potential if it is left to local initiatives, however good.
The scheme needs not only money but a coherent organisational framework, a set-up at national level to which people can relate. It is essential to establish a central partnership agency staffed by specialists, ideally located in the Cabinet Office. All that is vital to the guaranteeing of a continued positive direction, essential co-ordination, the ability to share best practice—which, I think, is one of the features of the 28 pilots that we have observed so far—and the continued promotion of an interdepartmental approach to some of the questions raised by the pilots themselves.
Ideally, 50 per cent. of any of the infrastructure to be established should be staffed by people who are 50 or older.
If resources are my first priority, my second is this: the Government cannot safely rely on independent external organisations, or indeed local government—although local government has an important role to play—to establish the infrastructure that is needed to ensure the national implementation of the project.
As for the third item on my wish list—I do not think that this will be difficult for the Minister—I want central Government to accept fully the responsibility of challenging the out-of-date concepts and stereotypes relating to older people. They have gone a long way towards doing that, but they have much further to go. Older people as a class are no longer poverty-stricken, ailing and dependent, although some obviously are, and their problems need to be addressed urgently as part of the programme. Public perception is important. Policy making, however, has focused too much on ideas such as infirmity and dependency. Such a caricature of older people is no longer relevant.
I hope that the Government will use all their power and determination to promote a much more positive message that encourages more people over 50 to become involved in lifelong learning and—for the benefit of the


community—to take employment advice and use the skills and experience that they acquired in their earlier working lives.
In the borders, we have learned quite a lot more about the difficulties that people have in gaining access to transport that suits their daily needs, in a manner and at the time that suits them. The pilot project in my own constituency was a valuable way of examining some of those problems in far more detail.
It is true that people are enjoying active lives, retiring much earlier and living longer. A salutary fact to remember is that it will not be long before more than half the population will be 50 or older. I think that the Minister himself might be approaching that very serious stage in life. Sadly, for me, that day has already passed. Therefore, perhaps we both have a personal interest in ensuring that such projects are properly employed.
In all the work on pilot projects that has been done, the three elements that I have identified stand out. I hope that the proceedings of the inter-ministerial group and anticipated Government announcements result in their being included in the Government's plan.
I cannot conclude such a debate without paying tribute to those who were responsible for conducting the borders pilot. We in south-east Scotland do not get the opportunity as often as we would like to contribute and participate in some of the Government's initiatives, and it is a great tribute to Scottish Borders council that it not only applied, but vigorously and robustly argued and lobbied to be included in the pilot. The council is a bit sore that it cost it £5,000 in fees to contribute to the pilot, but, in retrospect, it believes that the money was well spent and it has gained incalculably in improved policy.
The local programme director, Fiona White, worked unstintingly and well beyond her contracted hours to generate great local enthusiasm, which has paid handsome dividends. Many councillors—especially Jim Scott, in Hawick—attended all the SEARCH conferences, each of which was a very genuine and useful dialogue between the professional staff and older people, helping to tease out some of the issues.
I pay tribute especially to the volunteers in the 50-plus age group themselves who contributed more than 5,000 hours over two years. They made a signal contribution to the success of the pilot—which received a very high mark from Warwick university's evaluation of it. Even if nothing else happens, the pilot has achieved many positive outcomes that will benefit us locally.
Elders councils are a very important concept that I hope the Government will consider further. The councils enable older people to work with professional staff and voluntary organisations in contributing in an integrated manner to decision making. That proved to be extremely valuable. There is a model in the evaluation of the Borders pilot project to which I draw the Minister's attention.
Direct and active participation can lead to less long-term dependency because it engages people's interest and gets them more actively involved, physically and mentally.
The pilot project has been extremely successful. The bad news, perhaps, is that it has stimulated a level of expectancy and almost excitement among the people who participated in it. My constituents were genuinely excited and engaged in the process. I hope that, in the fullness of

time, the Government will be able to fulfil that expectancy and promote a national roll-out of the programme that will satisfy those aspirations. A lot has been achieved, but more can be done in the longer term with a little help from central Government.

The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Ian McCartney): I congratulate the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on securing this debate and on choosing a subject that, as he hinted in his speech, is close to my own heart. On 25 April this year I will cross the threshold and officially become an older person. A few years ago, I took pride in saying that I was the youngest grandfather in the House, but a few hon. Members who are younger than me now have grandchildren. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that, if only for personal reasons, as the clock ticks on the foothills of old age, we should secure a better future for older people and for ourselves.
The programme has been an excellent example of modernising government in action. At the national level it has brought together older people and central and local government on a consistent basis, which was no mean feat. The voluntary sector and the academic world have also played a significant part. A small but dedicated team, led by the programme's director, Martin Shreeve, has ably supported them. Together they have helped to steer the programme to a very successful conclusion.
The real work has been done at local level, however. The 28 pilot projects, including the one in the Scottish borders, have taken on a wide variety of tasks and adopted different methods to reach their goals. Without the efforts of local authorities, their partner organisations and, most importantly, the older people who played such an active role, we would not now be in position to learn the practical lessons of what works and what does not.
I do not have time to give the hon. Gentleman the Government's response to all the issues that he raised, such as stereotypes, so I shall write to him. On behalf of the Government, I would like to pay tribute to all those involved in the programme. The result of their work will be a better deal for older people from the public services, not over one year, but through continually improving services to older people and their access to them.
On 30 January, the Government will publish their response to the programme's recommendations. I cannot reveal the details, but I can say that the Government look forward to building on the better government for older people programme and its experience and developing the partnerships that it has established. I hope that I have addressed the hon. Gentleman's concern about continuation. I shall write to him as soon as I can and send him a personal copy of the report. Following the meeting on 30 January I shall write to him again about its outcome.
In Scotland and the Scottish borders in particular, the project helped to create a new culture of engagement and partnership in respect of working with older people between agencies and elected representatives. There was a profound change in other people's perception of older people and their potential for positive involvement as well as a change in older people themselves. No longer a burden, older people are now seen as a credible and knowledgeable group of people who should be listened


to; a resource that can be accessed as articulate, active citizens of the community, with an equal partnership in the community, working not just with other older people, but with younger people, community groups, local authorities, the private sector and the voluntary sector, using their skills, knowledge and experience to build a better community.
A key theme of the pilot was simpler access to community care to secure organisational change in the borders, integrating health and social work services. The team was congratulated by the programme evaluators on
adopting a systematic and multi-faceted approach to managing the changes and recognising and responding to the complexities of introducing change on this scale.
I, too, congratulate all involved in bringing the project to fruition so quickly.
The programme was always intended to last for two years. Its achievements are all the more impressive given the short time scale. The challenge now is to ensure that the lessons are learned and applied more widely across the public sector. In response to the 28 pilot projects, an increasing number of local authorities have sought of their own volition to gather information on best practice and to make changes without being within the pilots. The changes that the hon. Gentleman seeks are already under way. We hope that, following our response on 30 January, there will be even more progress on how local authorities can more effectively deliver services for older people.
Funding for the 28 pilot projects has come overwhelmingly from local authorities, with some additional funding from local partner organisations. It is important for local government to take the decision to continue to support the projects and to widen the drive to modernise services. We will work with local authorities to ensure that that happens.
In Scotland, there has been a more than 9 per cent. increase in funding over the next three years for local services. We are transferring an additional £81 million from the Department of Social Security to the Scottish Executive for the care of the elderly. Resources have flowed from the consequences of the programme.
I will send to the hon. Gentleman a set of practical examples of the pilot projects that have taken place across Britain, to show that there has been a wide dissemination throughout Scotland and the English regions of ideas from older people themselves on education, access to information, health and social care, joining up local services, better environments and how we can better co-ordinate between service providers in the public, private and voluntary sectors. Some amazing work has been done. We want to ensure that hon. Members encourage their local authorities to carry on the work that has been evaluated through the projects.
We are committed to policies that will allow older people to play a full part in society. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has been appointed to co-ordinate policies for the over-50s. The inter-ministerial group for older people will continue to ensure that older people's issues are at the centre of Government thinking. That group will work directly with pensioner organisations. Listening to older people events took place throughout the UK in 1999, and in May 2000 we launched a programme of action under the title "Life Begins at 50".
A key initiative has been to secure £300 million of investment to get more people involved in their communities, £120 million of which will be used to fund volunteering in public services by experienced people over the age of 50, bringing them back into productive activity. Another has been anti-discrimination legislation, building on the current code of practice on age diversity in employment, which will be introduced by 2006.
Care Direct will get £30 million over the next three years to pilot new approaches to giving people better access to social care, housing and social security benefits. I will write to the hon. Gentleman about the pilot projects for that programme. If they are successful, the programme will be rolled out over the next three years across the United Kingdom, changing dramatically the way in which older people and their carers and families can access advice, support and services in the care sector.
Winter fuel payments were increased to £200 this year. As part of the £1.4 billion announced in the NHS plan, an extra £900 million is to be made available for intermediate care and related services. Free television licences are worth £104 a year.
There have been increases in the basic state pension. We have introduced the minimum income guarantee and the pension credit. Over the next three years, we shall invest £200 million to modernise social security services for pensioners. As a direct result of what pensioners have said to us, there have been dramatic changes. Huge resources have been allocated to change the organisation and structure of government and our delivery of services for older people.
From June 2000, the new home energy efficiency scheme will be provided for older people—especially those in low-income households. They will be able to heat their houses more efficiently.
The national service framework for older people will be published shortly. From October 2001, there will be free medical care for people living in nursing homes. There will be breast screening for all women aged between 65 and 70. There are free eye tests for people aged over 60 and free influenza immunisation for the over-65s.
Many of those measures were initiated by older people themselves; they percolated from the grassroots. Older people have influenced the Government; we give them the credit. We have introduced measures, but they came about through partnership.
Such partnership is about more than considering the narrow issue of delivering and modernising services locally—the approach has been holistic. From the debate articulated by older people, the Government have been able to act on other matters that were outside the pilot project, so as to improve Government services and access to services. We have introduced new services and changed the structure of government. That process will continue over the next few years, until we have a Government structure that meets the daily needs of older people while constantly involving them in considering their priorities, the nature of services and their access to such services and indeed, on occasion, the funding of those services.
The hon. Gentleman and I are at one on this matter. Through the inter-ministerial group, I hope that none of my Government colleagues—whether or not they are directly involved in the delivery of services to older people—has failed to understand and accept the need to


put older people at the heart of their policy-making processes. However, policy making must become a reality through services. The needs of older people must be at the heart of the decision-making process.
Better Government for older people has been an example of "Modernising Government" in action: high-quality, responsive public services and partnership in working. The involvement of older people in the programme and their commitment to it provides a sharp contrast to the stereotypical and negative way in which they are sometimes portrayed—as the hon. Gentleman pointed out. Without their energy, application, drive, knowledge and commitment, the programme could not have succeeded as it has.
The Government will respond to build on the achievements of the programme; in time, we will help to deliver improvements in services in areas, such as the Scottish borders, that were lucky enough to have been involved from the outset and in those that have taken up

the challenge more recently, as well as in those areas where better integrated and more responsive services for older people are yet to come. That is the next challenge—not just setting up pilot projects or building on them, but involving those areas of the country that are not yet engaged.
This is a report in progress. The first phase is over; we are going into the second phase after 30 January and then we shall begin the third phase. There will be a rolling programme of improvements. I am happy again to express my praise for the achievements of the Scottish borders pilot, as described by the hon. Gentleman. I look forward to writing to him on several matters after the debate. I thank him again for bringing the issue to the attention of the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Twelve midnight.